Was Jesus Really Tempted by Satan?

Originally posted by Sigismundus

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.

Save for in reality this isnt tha case. It is said that Pilate understood the reason the Jews wanted him killed was out of envy. In addition Christ said His kingdom was not of this world otherwise his followers would fight. So there was no sedition. And to make the point further Pilate ended up washing his hands in front of them all meaning Rome had no part in this decision to take Barabas over Jesus.....it was wholly the will of the Jews and thus they testified against themselves that they were treasonous toward Ceasar. Had Jesus been a true zealot the Jews would have never brought Him before Pilate.

reply to post by nuttin4U
Jesus spent 40 days fasting to fullfill the prophets moses and elijah....they also spend 40 days fasting. In addition to your points.

reply to post by Logarock


Logarock is spot on. The Jews wanted Jesus to be their King to rise up and fight the Romans...the fact that he refused and what's more challenged their authority meant he was deemed an enemy of Caiphus and the Pharisees.

Why would Jesus stop Peter from hurting the Roman soldier further if he wanted his followers to fight the Romans also?

When the Jewish hierarchy tried to trick Jesus into sedition regarding taxes by showing him a denarius...his clever retort was to Pay what was due to Caesar to Caesar and to God what was due to God. They were stumped and couldn't argue with him.

Jesus also prophesised about the end of the Jewish system.... in Math 24. He told his disciples to read the signs and then act. Sure enough the zealouts, not the Christian by 66CE had caused their Roman overlords so much bother that they surrounded Jerusalem as recorded by Josephus independently. Jesus warned the Christians to flee to the mountains and escape the fate of that city. Suddenly Cestius Gallus withdrew for no apparent reason. This allowed Christians to put into action Jesus’ instructions: “Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of [Jerusalem] withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her.” (Lu 21:20-22) Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (III, V, 3), states that the Christians fled from Jerusalem and the whole land of Judea to a city of Perea that was called Pella

That again clearly seperated the Christians from the Jews and their revolt against the ruling authorities. If the Christians were leading the fight, why would Josephus, also have recorded their neutrality and stubborn refusal to take up any kind of military or political office.

Just like Jesus the early Christians.... ... " were no part of the world"

reply to post by Logarock

Hey Loga -

Let us not forget the clear apologetic tone in the Greek canonical ‘council approved’ Gospels which circulated in the Roman Empire (in order to make ‘converts’) ONLY AFTER the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) –

The writers (or final editors) had to be very careful NOT to seem to retain any of the original seditionistic anti-Roman, anti-Gentile Judaean-Rebellion tone of their originally armed and violent Messiah Hero if they were to be allowed to be ‘read in the churches’ without Rome intervening – yet books like the so-called Book of Revelation still retain the clear image of a Militant Zionist-Warrior ‘I Hate The Gentiles’ Messiah—no wonder the book barely got into the canon in the west – it’s a wonder the violent ‘whips and cords’ Riot in the Court of the Gentiles ever was retained – but that story was softened too.

We can clearly discern this post-Jewish War ‘apologetic’ attitude in the canonical Greek-Gospels towards the Kittim (i.e. the Romans) whenever the story threatens to remind the audience of the Failed Jewish Revolt of 70 CE - – where various Aramaic sayings which had orally circulated coming out of the mouth of an Aramaic speaking ‘Yehoshua-Messiah’ much toned-down in his original violent ‘jihadist’ political vitriol against the Roman Occupation into which he was born –

In fact, many originally 'violence-leaning' Aramaic sayings in the earliest Nazorean Messianist oral tradition (before the Gospel WhiteWash Machine took them over into Greek) were eerilly like the kind of specific war-against-the-gentiles vocabuilary of the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls’ War Scroll at Qumran (1QM – i.e. Cave One Milkhama, or ‘War’) which likewise proclaims a Coming Kingdom of Heavan (i.e. of David) and likewise proclaimed that the Times of the Kittim (i.e. the gentile-goyim occupiers of eretz Yisro’el) ‘is now over…’ (i.e. ‘the days of the kittim are fulfilled…’)

We also can see the even in the gospel-whitewash-depictions of the Praefect of Judaea, the hand-washing Pontius Pilatus of the gospels which bear no resemblance to actual history at all –

In fact the deliberately toned down make-over image of Pilate into a "Mr Nice Guy ‘harmless & friendly Pontius Pilate" that we read in the "council Approved" Gospels is NOT the same picture we receive from contemporary sources who had access to actual eyewitnesses of this monster ‘in real-life..’ :

Here is what Philo of Alexandria (who lived c. BC 20 to c. AD 50) and who actually saw the man in the flesh in his numerous pilgrimages to Jerusalem and Caesarea in the 30s CE has to say about the actual personal-style of this Pontius Pilatus as he REALLY was, and not as some fanciful apologetic ‘soft on Rome’ canonical gospels portray him:

Philo's Legatio ad Gaium, (Legatio 299-305).

“Pontius Pilatus was a man by Nature of an inflexibly cruel and violently-stubborn disposition...and always deathly-afraid that an Embassy of Iudaean subjects might some day lodge a legal-complaint to the Emperor at Rome listing his many years of Criminal Abuses – he lived in absolute Terror as to what possible Retribution against him might result if any of his many Crimes against the Judaeans ever came out – which would pertain not only to his own personal Conduct as Praefect, but also implicating his entire Administration --his constant taking of Bribes, his pre-emptively brutal Squelching of Public-Protests, his vile habit of Stealing of large capital sums from the Sacred Temple Treasury [cf: the infamous ‘Jerusalem Aqueduct’ Project] his inhuman Abuses of Power, his frequent Summary Executions of Political Prisoners without the Benefit of Trial, & scores of examples of his vicious physical Assaults & willful savage behavior towards many of his subjects…’

--Philo's Legatio ad Gaium, (Legatio 299-305).

All this from a contemporay of Pilatus himself who saw things for himself & knew eyewitnesses to the man who actually lived in the flesh - unlike the later ‘soft on Rome’ Gospels which circulated (in Greek !) some 50 years after the 'events' they purport to relate & who clearly saw the need to soften Pilate's real-historical image - as well as that of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk. Iesous) who deliberately armed his disciples in 36 CE - with REAL swords that cut off REAL ears !! – Shock & Awe !! - during THE Insurrection (cf: ‘Mark’ chapter 15:4-7) on the 100th anniversary of the invasion of the Roman General Pompey’s armies in 63 BCE

Reading Philo’s (admittedly Zionist) perspective it seems that the Historical Pointius Pilatus is NOT the type of person who would give the ‘historical Yehoshua bar Yosef’ anything more than a ‘summary execution without Trial’ - especially when he learned that he was another Armed Galilean Daviddic Pretender as well !

Is this beginning to get clearer now? Or not ?!

reply to post by JB1234


We forgot the saying of Pilate "I find no fault in this man".

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by Logarock

Hi LogaRock -


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...

I wanted to add today in regards to these charges some comments recorded by Mark in the same area of his gospel you touched on.

They said in regard to Jesus casting out a demon and healing in the synagogue.......

"What new doctrine is this? With authority He commands the unclean spirits" and "we have never seen it in this fashion"

They were amazed at His power to simply order demons out without all the mumbo jumbo. And apparently the locals were not good at that anyway as the whole countryside was full of demon cases.

Not to mention that the demons themselves were crying out "you are the son of god".

Originally posted by Sigismundus

Philo's Legatio ad Gaium, (Legatio 299-305).

“Pontius Pilatus was a man by Nature of an inflexibly cruel and violently-stubborn disposition...and always deathly-afraid that an Embassy of Iudaean subjects might some day lodge a legal-complaint to the Emperor at Rome listing his many years of Criminal Abuses – he lived in absolute Terror as to what possible Retribution against him might result if any of his many Crimes against the Judaeans ever came out –.......

This terror may have been what drove Pilatus to cave in and give Jesus up. I mean why would he let a known zealot who had been condemed for killing Romans go free?

He may have been smarter than first thought as by letting the Jews have Barabas Pilate could show Rome that the Jews would rather have a zealot given them.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I understand the metaphysical implication of the story and doctrines of Christianty, but I have a hard time believing that God would deliberately set Satan after Jesus. Clearly, according to the book of Job, Satan needs permission.

Hey OP there are many here who long to bash God Fearing Christians who believe in Jesus Christ as to your intention I am unsure but your tone has been polite compared to some lost soles here "Thank You".

There are other warning or heads up given by Paul and Peter regarding the Fire Trial one is about to partake in after there witness to The Revelation of Jesus Christ and they ought not to wonder about this strange thing occurring to them.

I perceive this trial is similar to Satins manifestation to Jesus however Paul and Peter warn about Angels longing to look in to these matters.

There is a spiritual manifestation from Heaven and Hell to those who have been given the Revelation of Jesus Christ and after they have proven where there heart abides they are forever changed.

I can say this with a truth God The Farther and Jesus Christ are able to deliver those who believe from trouble as well as show them salvation / favor in this world.

Originally posted by windword
First off let me say that I am NOT a Christain and I'm not trying to pick a fight or insult anybody. I have a question that goes to the charactor of the Biblical representation of Jesus. I am not attacking Jesus, but questioning the logic of the story.

I quit Christian belief as Hebrew Scripture from Y'suah's Own instruction showed me more and more he was not "Christian"! Following only what he teaches leads one to discover a very different Person in Y'suah, than the pagan Vatican tries desperately to make Him look like.



That being said........

I was reading this thread All Roads Lead to Rome which I highly recommend, that ties together brilliantly the not so secret history of the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, among other things.

When reading about the reign of Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea which is when we see the birth of Christianity and the scriptures cannonized, I started to wonder about something.

When one objectively opens research on the Vatican, Babylon, the city-state of rebellion against The Deity after the Flood comes into clear focus, with all its pagan symbolism and heathen occult rituals. Much as Y'suah told Disciple Yochanan in The Revelations about Babylon being brought into action during these Last Hours of Man's rule over Earth.


Did Satan really tempt Jesus in the desert?

According to the biblical accounts of Mathew, Luke and Mark, Jesus set off on a "vision quest" in the desert and fasted for 40 days, shortly after his babtism by John the Babtist.

During his quest he was tempted by Satan to:

Make bread out of stones to relieve his own hunger

Free himself from a pinnacle by jumping and relying on angels to break his fall. The narrative of both Luke and Matthew has the devil quote Psalm 91:11-12 to show that God had promised this assistance, although the devil implies that the passage may be used to justify presumptuous acts, while the Psalm only promises that God will deliver those who trust and abide in Him.

Worship the devil in return for all the kingdoms of the world. Luke has the devil explicitly claim this authority had previously been handed to himself, the devil.
(Wikipedia)

While I don't have a problem with the symbolism of this story, I have a problem with the "truthiness" of it.

Did Jesus come back, after having been fed by the angels, and tell everyone about his struggle with Satan? Did he go about bragging about his faith in God and that he would not give in to Satan, even though he was sorely tested?

Did he reveal a weakness to his disciples by complaining about the temptation and that nasty Satan? Then bolster himself and his faith by telling the story? The story is not told though the words of Jesus, but by a 3rd party.

It seems out of charactor for Jesus to discuss his conversation with Satan about his relationship with his father. Jesus never said he was tempted by Satan, and I don't think he was!


Now this is why I am here, and in fact is why I registered - to reply.

I've been really intrigued of late by this account. It started with sharing a text from the Khaboris Manuscript with a neighbor, the translation of Mattityahu (Matthew) 4, verse 1, which reads: "Then Jesus was drawn from rukha d'koodsha into an unprotected state for what would be His stress from uprightness."

Yes! That's what it says, and the small book begins with: ""Translated direct into English from the ancient Aramaic with particular and painstaking fidelity to the preservation of the thought patterns, images, and concepts peculiar to Aramaic, the native language of Jesus of Nazareth, and the language in which he delivered His teachings to the world."

That said, the pagan Vatican - I cannot stress enough how "pagan" that Vatican truly is - does all in its power to un-deify Y'suah, Who states He is Truth, Life, and the ONLY Way to heaven, or as the pagans say, "Father." He also clearly states He is "I AM," exactly what he said to Moshe' as His Title to give to the ancient people of Israel in Egypt. That's extremely well vetted records, BTW.

Therefore, as you rightly query here, how in the world was Y'suah even remotely subject to one of His creatures coming up and "tempting" Him?! Would I be tempted by my great, great grandbaby to do a terrible deed against myself?

I think not! And here Y'suah is Creator, and far more the progenitor of all creatures, than I am of a great, great grradbaby!

Ha! This has very tight limits on post length!

I'll continue with a second section. . .

]

edit on 18-9-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

[/qu extra DIV

reply to post by ClaudeA


My first attempt to add a second section!

"I think not! And here Y'suah is Creator, and far more the progenitor of all creatures, than I am of a great, great grradbaby!

Ha! This has very tight limits on post length!"


Second section . . .

. . . But, there is a real clue the pagan Vatican wants to gloss over here! Y'suah IS a second Ish (Awdawm), just as His Hebrew Scripture states He is! Now, who was Ish? Especially, who was Ish BEFORE he ate that fruit?

Hebrew Scripture records Ish was without any disobedience to The Deity, before taking the fruit Ishah offered. We now have no idea what this state of being without evil acts is, so it's very hard work to understand. But, this error-free state of mind and heart was also what Y'suah was in before His time of temptation.

So, WHO tempted Y'suah? It's key to knowing Who Y'suah Himself is!

Looking at the record for Ish' time of tempting, we find that Serpent and Satan were not there - only Ishah, and very clearly Ish had left her to her own resources, else Serpent would never have had her alone with him to deceive her!

Satan was also not there with ish when Ishah offered the fruit. Who tempted Ish - he did!

That is why the accurate translation given in Aramaic for Y'suah's Own temptation says "uprightness" tempted Him - HE DID! Like Ish before, without any error in him, but with full human self-pride, Ish tempted himself to NOT ask The Deity how to respond, and he alone tempted himself.

We all tempt ourselves!

So, as Y'suah faced the same temptations to defy The Deity - Himself being The Deity, but in mans' flesh, had His flesh say the same thing to Him Ish' flesh said to Ish' heart, "Just do it My Way"!

Y'suah beat this common temptation by referring to The Deity, which Ish did NOT do!

There lies the difference between the temptation of Ish - MAN - and Y''suah, Who is The Deity.

Moral? When the flesh tempts, turn immediately to The Deity! Temptation vanishes!:-))

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.

windword,

Why are you bothering with reading an anti-Catholic book? The Remnant is Roman Catholic. God is going to
show the entire world in a personal Damascus moment. It is 'soon', Heaven's soon bu MO, it is not far
off.

Prophecy has said the same for over 15 years of my reading private revelation.

reply to post by colbe


WOW Colbe! I'm flattered that you would find an old thread of mine and revive it.

What anti-Catholic book are your referring to, the King James Bible?

At any rate, do you suppose that Jesus came back, after his Vision Quest in the desert, and started bragging to his mates how he kicked some Satan arse?

reply to post by ClaudeA


Thanks for well thought out and well researched reply. Very interesting!

It reminds of the story of Buddha, when he was tempted by the deity of Illusion. The deity, can't remember his name right now, demanded that Buddha provide one who would testify on his behalf, and Buddha answered, the Earth will!

reply to post by windword


You are referring to Mara. I always found that story interesting for the inversion of the serpent motif by making the serpent (Naga if I remember correctly) a protector , by covereing the buddha ,rather than the seducer/tempter from the genesis account. As a Christian I find this to be an obvious mark of the serpents/satan's hand in this tale. I would post links but keep getting DNS errors from wikipedia.

reply to post by NihilistSanta


Interesting. I would love to see those links, later when Wiki isn't acting up for you.

As far as the serpent, I don't know, but wouldn't it be related to the Kundalini energy, the life force that rises from the base of the spine to the pineal?

I don't think that eastern philosophies or religions use the serpent as an evil icon. But, I can see where Christians can point and say that it's an evil icon because of the serpents depiction in the Genesis. However, I don't that story any more literally than I think that the stars that make up the constellation of Taurus represent an evil icon because of the Hebrew's golden calf story.

Here, I found the story, in this YouTube, starting at 49min in, of Buddha's battle with "Mara" the deity of desire. It reminds me of story, what I think it represents, of the temptation of Jesus.

reply to post by windword


I was just mentioning my perspective as a christian on the ideas from the east that have a positive representation of serpents. This could be related to kundulini but I see the story meant to be more literal like Christ temptation and the genesis accounts.

Traditions about nāgas are also very common in all the Buddhist countries of Asia. In many countries, the nāga concept has been merged with local traditions of great and wise serpents or dragons. In Tibet, the nāga was equated with the klu, wits that dwell in lakes or underground streams and guard treasure. In China, the nāga was equated with the lóng or Chinese dragon.

The Buddhist nāga generally has the form of a great cobra-like snake, usually with a single head but sometimes with many. At least some of the nāgas are capable of using magic powers to transform themselves into a human semblance. In Buddhist painting, the nāga is sometimes portrayed as a human being with a snake or dragon extending over his head. One nāga, in human form, attempted to become a monk; when telling it that such ordination was impossible, the Buddha told it how to ensure that it would be reborn a man, able to become a monk.[11]

In the 'Devadatta' chapter of the Lotus Sutra, an eight year old female Naga, after listening to Manjushri preach the Lotus Sutra, transforms her body into that of a male human and immediately reaches full enlightenment.[12] This tale appears to reinforce the viewpoint prevalent in Mahayana scriptures that a male human body is required for Buddhahood, even if a being is so advanced in her realization that she can magically transform her body at will and demonstrate the emptiness of the physical form itself.

Nāgas are believed to both live on Mount Sumeru, among the other minor deities, and in various parts of the human-inhabited earth. Some of them are water-dwellers, living in streams or the mer; others are earth-dwellers, living in underground caverns.
The nāgas are the servants of Virūpākṣa (Pāli: Virūpakkha), one of the Four Heavenly Kings who guards the western direction. They act as a guard upon Mount Sumeru, protecting the devas of Trāyastriṃśa from attack by the Asuras.

Among the notable nāgas of Buddhist tradition is Mucalinda, protector of the Buddha. In the Vinaya Sutra (I, 3) the Buddha shortly after his enlightenment is meditating in a forest when a great storm arises, but graciously Naga King Mucalinda gives shelter to the Buddha from the storm by covering the Buddha's head with his 7 snake heads.[13] Then the king takes the form of a young Brahmin and renders the Buddha homage.[14]

It is noteworthy that the 2 chief disciples of the Buddha, Sariputra and Maudgalyayana are referred to as
Mahanaga.[15] Some of the most important figures in Buddhist history symbolize nagas in their names such as Dignaga, Nagasena, and, although other etymons are assigned to his name, Nagarjuna.
In the Vajrayana and Mahasiddha traditions according to Beer (1999),[page needed] many notable fully enlightened nagas also transmitted and/or transported terma into and out of the human realm that had been elementally encoded by adepts.

Norbu (1999: p.?) states that according to tradition the Prajnaparamita terma teachings are held to have been conferred upon Nagarjuna by Nagaraja, the King of the nagas, who had been guarding them at the bottom of a lake. Refer Lotus Sutra.

Source: Wikipedia - Naga

Originally posted by windword
First off let me say that I am NOT a Christain and I'm not trying to pick a fight or insult anybody. I have a question that goes to the charactor of the Biblical representation of Jesus. I am not attacking Jesus, but questioning the logic of the story.

That being said........

I was reading this thread All Roads Lead to Rome which I highly recommend, that ties together brilliantly the not so secret history of the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, among other things.

When reading about the reign of Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea which is when we see the birth of Christianity and the scriptures cannonized, I started to wonder about something.

Did Satan really tempt Jesus in the desert?

According to the biblical accounts of Mathew, Luke and Mark, Jesus set off on a "vision quest" in the desert and fasted for 40 days, shortly after his babtism by John the Babtist.

During his quest he was tempted by Satan to:

Make bread out of stones to relieve his own hunger

Free himself from a pinnacle by jumping and relying on angels to break his fall. The narrative of both Luke and Matthew has the devil quote Psalm 91:11-12 to show that God had promised this assistance, although the devil implies that the passage may be used to justify presumptuous acts, while the Psalm only promises that God will deliver those who trust and abide in Him.

Worship the devil in return for all the kingdoms of the world. Luke has the devil explicitly claim this authority had previously been handed to himself, the devil.
(Wikipedia)

While I don't have a problem with the symbolism of this story, I have a problem with the "truthiness" of it.

Did Jesus come back, after having been fed by the angels, and tell everyone about his struggle with Satan? Did he go about bragging about his faith in God and that he would not give in to Satan, even though he was sorely tested?

Did he reveal a weakness to his disciples by complaining about the temptation and that nasty Satan? Then bolster himself and his faith by telling the story? The story is not told though the words of Jesus, but by a 3rd party.

It seems out of charactor for Jesus to discuss his conversation with Satan about his relationship with his father. Jesus never said he was tempted by Satan, and I don't think he was!



]

edit on 18-9-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

Well, the Bible has it as a literal temptation by an actual being, but I think one could also see it as an allegorical and symbolic story about temptation,

As for Jesus' motives, I think you miss the most logical reason: that he (assuming he actually existed) used it as a teachable moment about temptation and the human side of "the son of man" extra DIV