Confused about something Jesus did.

I'd say that it's about God wanting to teach a lesson to Satan. "Don't try to mess with Jesus. You can but lose."

Theres some good input here. Let me put my two cents in.

Jesus came to fulfill all righteousness. He came to faithfully and perfectly submit His will to the Father. He came to succeed were Adam failed. And God knew when he sent His Son that Satan would test Him. But satan had his motives and the Holy Spirit had His. Satan was working within the providence of God, but he still had evil intent.

Something else we should be doing as students of the Bible is view all the letters of the NT as a sort of " commentary " of the Gospel itself. The Apostle shed a lot of light on life and purpose of the Christ. For example..

" For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. " Romans 5:19

...and also..

^" For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." - Hebrews 4:15

I would actually recommend a whole study of the letter too the Hebrews for a fuller understanding.

Also, I would like to note of how Jesus resisted Satan...the Word of God. All three temptations were repelled by upholding what God revealed in the past. This is why Jesus succeeded and Adam fell. If Adam ( or Eve ) upheld the Word spoken to him in the garden, then satan would have fled then as well.

Kerrick wrote:I believe it was literal.  But I don't think that Jesus saying, "ok I'll walk to this spot or that spot with you" is "obeying" Satan.  Jesus went into the desert to be tempted by Satan.  The temptations were not walking around and talking with Satan, but rather the three instances where Satan specifically tried to get Jesus to sin against the Father.  Jesus was engaging in a conversation with Satan - which is not sinful.

Right. I guess it doesn't matter how it happened as long as Jesus " literally " resisted satan.

In a nutshell, if this wasn't a literal occurrence then what the author of Hebrews offers us as encouragement is based a false reality.

.....once again...

 ^" For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. "

I Havent found one post that I 100% agree with, so I cant say I agree with such and such or mirror such and such at least based on my perception. So this is what I believe...

I do mirror the belief that Jesus was led by the spirit, not the devil as even the devil is bound to the power of God in that he must obey. I do not believe that he was being "teleported" I believe he walked the desert else why 40 days and 40 nights? Why not do it in a few days then?

Jesus had to be tempted in ALL ways, to not only come into his righteousness but to show us his people that we too can resist temptation.  This was part of his calling.  Remember All God and All Man. I mean really what kind of credability would he have had if he wasnt tempted and went through the same things we did? If anything it was also to say Hey It can be done, I went through this too.

The highest peak showing the world, could have been some sort of vision but the known world was much smaller then. Maybe it was just jerusalem he was being shown?  I seriously doubt he was teleporting around. If anything he was doing that after the ressurection

Aaron C wrote:
I do mirror the belief that Jesus was led by the spirit, not the devil as even the devil is bound to the power of God in that he must obey. I do not believe that he was being "teleported" I believe he walked the desert else why 40 days and 40 nights? Why not do it in a few days then?

Note that the verses seem to imply that the devil came to him after 40 days.  The NLT verses above don't imply it as much, but I just looked up several other main translations and they imply that Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days before Satan came. 

As an example, here is NIV:

"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.  After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. ³ The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

spitshockey81 wrote:In some instances I wonder if the devil isn't the anthropomorphism of carnal, human, prideful desire. Perhaps the human in Jesus seeing that he could have it all now, if he didn't follow through with Gods redemption plan, he could rule the world, have all the kingdoms now, etc. I know I certainly have similar temptations, not in the form of kingdoms but other pleasures that would bring gratification now but would sacrifice obedience to Gods plan.

That's kind of what I was getting at.

Devon Hill wrote:Satan is prideful, and even though he might have known (?) that this was "strength training" for Jesus, he would still try to get him to sin anyway.  If he succeeded in making Jesus sin, Jesus could not have successfully died on the cross for our sins.  Jesus had to be sinless and a perfect sacrifice for his death on the cross to be effective for us.  So if Satan was effective in tempting Jesus into sin, he would have won.  If he's given that opportunity, he would take it.

Yes!  Have you ever known someone who was so arrogant or stubborn that it didn't matter how many people told them their ideas wouldn't work they didn't care and insisted on doing what they wanted anyway?  If Satan was arrogant enough to think he could wrest the Throne of Heaven from God Almighty, then why would he think he wouldn't be able to get Jesus to sin?

sentient 6 wrote:

Kerrick wrote:I believe it was literal.  But I don't think that Jesus saying, "ok I'll walk to this spot or that spot with you" is "obeying" Satan.  Jesus went into the desert to be tempted by Satan.  The temptations were not walking around and talking with Satan, but rather the three instances where Satan specifically tried to get Jesus to sin against the Father.  Jesus was engaging in a conversation with Satan - which is not sinful.

Right. I guess it doesn't matter how it happened as long as Jesus " literally " resisted satan.

In a nutshell, if this wasn't a literal occurrence then what the author of Hebrews offers us as encouragement is based a false reality.

.....once again...

 ^" For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. "

I guess it depends on what you mean by a "literal occurence."  The Hebrews verse could still be accurate if the Matthew account is not a literal recollection of what happened. 

Devon Hill wrote:

Aaron C wrote:
I do mirror the belief that Jesus was led by the spirit, not the devil as even the devil is bound to the power of God in that he must obey. I do not believe that he was being "teleported" I believe he walked the desert else why 40 days and 40 nights? Why not do it in a few days then?

Note that the verses seem to imply that the devil came to him after 40 days.  The NLT verses above don't imply it as much, but I just looked up several other main translations and they imply that Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days before Satan came. 

As an example, here is NIV:

"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.  After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. ³ The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

Yes, good point.  Most versions I have seen do include that (important) word "After".  I've always thought that was a funny verse.  Like did Matthew really have to tell us that after going for 40 days and nights without eating (or eating significant amounts, depending on what type of fasting Jesus was doing) he was hungry?

Also off-point:  it is significant that Matthew mentions days and nights because a lot of Jewish fasts go from sunrise to sunset.

messiaen77 wrote:

sentient 6 wrote:

Kerrick wrote:I believe it was literal....

Right. I guess it doesn't matter how it happened as long as Jesus " literally " resisted satan.

In a nutshell, if this wasn't a literal occurrence then what the author of Hebrews offers us as encouragement is based a false reality....

I guess it depends on what you mean by a "literal occurence." The Hebrews verse could still be accurate if the Matthew account is not a literal recollection of what happened.

I believe it was "literal" whether it was a vision, or normal consciousness with walking.
If we start a fight over THIS, then God help us all.

ThomasEversole wrote:

messiaen77 wrote:

sentient 6 wrote:

Kerrick wrote:I believe it was literal....

Right. I guess it doesn't matter how it happened as long as Jesus " literally " resisted satan.

In a nutshell, if this wasn't a literal occurrence then what the author of Hebrews offers us as encouragement is based a false reality....

I guess it depends on what you mean by a "literal occurence."  The Hebrews verse could still be accurate if the Matthew account is not a literal recollection of what happened.

I believe it was "literal" whether it was a vision, or normal consciousness with walking.
If we start a fight over THIS, then God help us all.

 

ThomasEversole wrote:

messiaen77 wrote:

sentient 6 wrote:

Kerrick wrote:I believe it was literal....

Right. I guess it doesn't matter how it happened as long as Jesus " literally " resisted satan.

In a nutshell, if this wasn't a literal occurrence then what the author of Hebrews offers us as encouragement is based a false reality....

I guess it depends on what you mean by a "literal occurence."  The Hebrews verse could still be accurate if the Matthew account is not a literal recollection of what happened.

I believe it was "literal" whether it was a vision, or normal consciousness with walking.
If we start a fight over THIS, then God help us all.

Honestly it wouldnt surprise me, While it would be interesting to know specifics its really a topic that is not reliant on our Salvation, In other words like Creation I wont lose sleep over it.

ThomasEversole wrote:

messiaen77 wrote:

sentient 6 wrote:

Kerrick wrote:I believe it was literal....

Right. I guess it doesn't matter how it happened as long as Jesus " literally " resisted satan.

In a nutshell, if this wasn't a literal occurrence then what the author of Hebrews offers us as encouragement is based a false reality....

I guess it depends on what you mean by a "literal occurence."  The Hebrews verse could still be accurate if the Matthew account is not a literal recollection of what happened.

I believe it was "literal" whether it was a vision, or normal consciousness with walking.
If we start a fight over THIS, then God help us all.

Right, and I TRULY wasn't trying to nitpick words or start a fight over it.  I believe Jesus truly and literally was tempted in these ways and truly and literally resisted every temptation he was faced with, not just here but throughout his life.  Literal gets to be a tricky word when it comes to Bible interpretation and I just wanted to express the opinion that Matthew's account did not need to be a literal (as in exactly as it happened) account of Jesus resisting temptation for it to still matter.

Right ... Scripture is still mysterious ... even to those of us who have been studying the Bible for years. I went to Bible college and have read the Bible through from cover to cover multiple times. Even now ... I see new things that I never saw before. It's almost like magic. It's mystical. It's powerful.

I believe it's symbolic in the sense that I'm not a 'literalist'. Some people are. Some people don't see anything symbolic about the Bible at all ... and just take it all literally. I don't condemn that view. But for me - I believe that the whole thing has got buried treasures of symbolism in it.

When you read the Book of Revelation without the usual 'religious glasses' on, and try to see it as all symbolic - it really comes alive!

Same with some of the Old Testament too. Not to mention the Gospels and everything else!

I'm a seeker of light. Of Truth. Of love.

If I need to correct someone for a 'false teaching' ... I'm going to do it in love. Strife is never okay with the Holy Spirit.

I have been thinking about this for a few days...First off I dont believe in the trinity so I dont believe Jesus is God (he s the son of God) but I do believe he is the human Savior (if he was God then he couldn't be tempted)......so from my perspective Jesus is the first to receive the holy spirit within him the way the  saved have the spirit today...the spirit leads us and guides us and can lead us out of temptation if we follow him instead of getting caught up in ourselves...I think the point of the story here is that Jesus stayed fixed on the spirit (who reminded him of the truths he spoke) and because of that he was able to overcome Satan's temptations setting the example for us...Jesus spent alot of time setting the example for the rest of us...

Interesting question and discussion.  Another perspective on why Jesus was "lead" by the devil in this instance is that we should never seek temptation, but only be dragged there.  After all, Jesus also tells us to pray that we enter not into temptation.

Savage Amusement wrote:I have been thinking about this for a few days...First off I dont believe in the trinity so I dont believe Jesus is God (he s the son of God) but I do believe he is the human Savior (if he was God then he couldn't be tempted)......so from my perspective Jesus is the first to receive the holy spirit within him the way the  saved have the spirit today...the spirit leads us and guides us and can lead us out of temptation if we follow him instead of getting caught up in ourselves...I think the point of the story here is that Jesus stayed fixed on the spirit (who reminded him of the truths he spoke) and because of that he was able to overcome Satan's temptations setting the example for us...Jesus spent alot of time setting the example for the rest of us...

Boy, two of the things we used too agree on ( deity of Christ, Trinity ). We don't even got that in common anymore. I am even more grieved by this news than all the other stuff from before.

So, do you believe in two Gods now ?  Do you worship Christ and the Father as two separate Gods ? What is the the Holy Spirit according to your beliefs ? I ask this in all sincerity.

RavenWolf wrote:
If I need to correct someone for a 'false teaching' .

Boy, I'd love to pick some brains here to find out what some truly believe were " false " teachings.  

Bank tellers are trained to know fake money. They study what makes up real US currency.  So they can spot the the fakes in all their forms. To know what " true " teaching is as opposed to " false " teachings we have to know what constitutes true belief and theology. And we have to understand the source of authority behind what is true. Someone else may have another source of authority that informs their belief that contradicts my belief as well.

Boy, two of the things we used too agree on ( deity of Christ, Trinity ). We don't even got that in common anymore. I am even more grieved by this news than all the other stuff from before.

So, do you believe in two Gods now ?  Do you worship Christ and the Father as two separate Gods ? What is the the Holy Spirit according to your beliefs ? I ask this in all sincerity.

I will pm a response as to not knock this thread off topic...

sentient 6 wrote:

Savage Amusement wrote:I have been thinking about this for a few days...First off I dont believe in the trinity so I dont believe Jesus is God (he s the son of God) but I do believe he is the human Savior (if he was God then he couldn't be tempted)......so from my perspective Jesus is the first to receive the holy spirit within him the way the  saved have the spirit today...the spirit leads us and guides us and can lead us out of temptation if we follow him instead of getting caught up in ourselves...I think the point of the story here is that Jesus stayed fixed on the spirit (who reminded him of the truths he spoke) and because of that he was able to overcome Satan's temptations setting the example for us...Jesus spent alot of time setting the example for the rest of us...

Boy, two of the things we used too agree on ( deity of Christ, Trinity ). We don't even got that in common anymore. I am even more grieved by this news than all the other stuff from before.

So, do you believe in two Gods now ?  Do you worship Christ and the Father as two separate Gods ? What is the the Holy Spirit  according to your beliefs ? I ask this in all sincerity.

Savage Amusement, I'm going to both agree with and contrast Sentient6.  
The agree part: I personally believe in The Trinity, and that Jesus is God.  (and God's Son, and the Holy Ghost)
The disagree part: If you don't believe in the trinity, I completely respect your personal belief regarding this.  Its really 6 of one thing, half a dozen of another in my opinion, and I'm glad to have you as a brother in Christ.  

THAT's what's really important.
...not getting you straightened out on believing the trinity.

sentient 6 wrote:

RavenWolf wrote:
If I need to correct someone for a 'false teaching' .

Boy, I'd love to pick some brains here to find out what some truly believe were " false " teachings.  

Bank tellers are trained to know fake money. They study what makes up real US currency.  So they can spot the the fakes in all their forms. To know what " true " teaching is as opposed to " false " teachings we have to know what constitutes true belief and theology. And we have to understand the source of authority behind what is true. Someone else may have another source of authority that informs their belief that contradicts my belief as well.

The analogy you used explains why you're doing what you're doing here.  (I mean that in all your threads, not just this one)
Bank tellers are trained to know fake money, just like you're "trained" to seek and destroy false teachings.

In true parallel though, if bank tellers took your approach to counterfeit money, they'd browbeat/nag the counterfeiter until he either confessed, left or an endless back-and-forth fight broke out.  I really think you should handle false teachings how bankers handle false money.  Report the discrepancy to the authorities and let them handle it.

I mean, take it upon yourself to ignore the edit button (again) and chain post why someone's wrong, it just wreaks of ego and poison. It would make much more sense, be way more productive and birth less resentments if you just told your brother you disagreed, why you disagreed, but let God handle it.

In hindsight, I should just disagree with you and let God handle you.  ...and I'll be the first to admit I'm not there yet.
Just something about internet bullies that makes me want to dose their own medicine back to them, you know?

RavenWolf wrote:Right ... Scripture is still mysterious ... even to those of us who have been studying the Bible for years. I went to Bible college and have read the Bible through from cover to cover multiple times. Even now ... I see new things that I never saw before. It's almost like magic. It's mystical. It's powerful.

I believe it's symbolic in the sense that I'm not a 'literalist'. Some people are. Some people don't see anything symbolic about the Bible at all ... and just take it all literally. I don't condemn that view. But for me - I believe that the whole thing has got buried treasures of symbolism in it.

When you read the Book of Revelation without the usual 'religious glasses' on, and try to see it as all symbolic - it really comes alive!

Same with some of the Old Testament too. Not to mention the Gospels and everything else!

I'm a seeker of light. Of Truth. Of love.

If I need to correct someone for a 'false teaching' ... I'm going to do it in love. Strife is never okay with the Holy Spirit.

I guess I am a bit of both, I know the bible is symbolic in places, and I do believe some of it happened literally. My wife doesnt believe the events in Genesis actually happened but I believe they did. That according to her reading by scholars it was a collection of tales to instill lessons. I dont agree with that personally.

Revelations is very symbolic, as is Proverbs, Its all about context. While we all can use several different versions to try to get the meaning of some of the scripture only God truely knows

Aaron. You're right. The correct answer is 'both'.

Though some strict fundamentalists do not believe this - nonetheless it's true! God's Word is BOTH literal and symbolic!

Who are we to limit God? As if He can't have more than one meaning in the same verse if He wants to? The Bible is very 'layered' with meaning. Sometimes there are 5 or 6 things hidden in the same verse!!!

Try meditating on the Book of Proverbs for about 30 days straight! Tell me you don't come back with more than one meaning for some of these verses! Ya know? Chock FULL of meaning ... symbolic and otherwise.

Who are we to limit God? As if He can't have more than one meaning in the same verse if He wants to? The Bible is very 'layered' with meaning. Sometimes there are 5 or 6 things hidden in the same verse!!!

Back in my seminary days, this was called the "Law Of Double Reference".

alldatndensum wrote:

Who are we to limit God? As if He can't have more than one meaning in the same verse if He wants to? The Bible is very 'layered' with meaning. Sometimes there are 5 or 6 things hidden in the same verse!!!

Back in my seminary days, this was called the "Law Of Double Reference".

Precisely!

I love that I always get something new when I go through Proverbs easily one of the most read books in the bible for me

sentient 6 wrote:

RavenWolf wrote:
If I need to correct someone for a 'false teaching' .

Boy, I'd love to pick some brains here to find out what some truly believe were " false " teachings.  

Bank tellers are trained to know fake money. They study what makes up real US currency.  So they can spot the the fakes in all their forms. To know what " true " teaching is as opposed to " false " teachings we have to know what constitutes true belief and theology. And we have to understand the source of authority behind what is true. Someone else may have another source of authority that informs their belief that contradicts my belief as well.

The source of authority behind what is true must always be the Holy Spirit.  I know, you are going to say Scripture, but without the Holy Spirit, Scripture is just words on a page.  The Spirit is the very person of God living and breathing in and through us, continuing the work of Jesus as Emmanuel.