(if i've posted this before then someone please tell me and i'll delete it)

According to scripture Christ was tempted by satan in the wilderness.

question: who was satan? (his probable name and occupation).

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

(if i've posted this before then someone please tell me and i'll delete it)

According to scripture Christ was tempted by satan in the wilderness.

question: who was satan? (his probable name and occupation).



There are many who believe that Lucifer & Satan are one and the same being, but others have said that Lucifer was the top angel until he rebeled against god and thrown out of heaven taken satan which is one of his lesser demons with him.

As far as lucifer job goes. He was the top angel in charge of all the legions of heaven second in power only to God himself, or so goes the story.

Since Lucifer was never an Angel to begin with, I think you fail the question.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Since Lucifer was never an Angel to begin with, I think you fail the question.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Lucifer WAS an angel. He was the protector of God's holiness.

HaSatan (Hebrew for The Adversary) is not a name, it's a title. He's god's prosecutor, accusing mankind for its sins, and tempting them when necessary to prove his point. He functions completely in accordance with the will of God. Christians invented the story of Lucifer and the Fall and proposed a power nearly equal, but opposite to God, entirely against his will that tempts mankind and brings them ruin through sin. They extrapolate this from a prophetic verse describing the fall of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, comparing him to Venus (the Morning Star) in his waxing and waning. The whole idea is ridiculous in that it not only supposes that angels have free will equal to our own and are capable of rebelling, but also challenges the absolute authority of God over all goings on in the universe by postulating that it is possible for things to occur that are contrary to his will. This is convenient for their theology in that the once hard to understand evils of the world, and their place in God's purpose, fit neatly into the domain of another being that can assume blame and infamy for them.

quote:Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Not to semi side track this thread but maybe you should read the bible. Lucifer was a man, a king, but still just a man.

It's amazing how many christians haven't bothered to even read the bible.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Not to semi side track this thread but maybe you should read the bible. Lucifer was a man, a king, but still just a man.

It's amazing how many christians haven't bothered to even read the bible.

yes you're right (as is Sephiroth) as far as you go...now name and job please!

Within every human there are tendancies at any given moment to do one thing another.

It's kind of like the road less traveled by Robert Frost.

But,

in the case of J. C.

I'd like to qoute Jerry Sienfeld.

'Sometimes the road less travelled is less travelled for a reason.'

Satan was jesus' bad

i guess that satan is also called lucifer and the devil.

He tempts people away from God because i guess he is jealous:

"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 13"But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’" Isaiah 14:12-14.

I think it is a person rather than a force.

the 'satan' in the temptation of christ was a human being.

i'm asking who it was and what he did to earn his daily schekels (yes it was a 'he').

It is said what he did^

He was an angel that rebelled and supposedly was sent down with some of his angel friends (stars of heaven).

Satan's occupation would be deception. Satan works through fleshly ways and the thoughts of the mind as well. "You can't do it. You just got finished drinking a beer, God didn't forgive you." Basically holding those back that aren't in christ and trying to decieve those who are in christ through religous beliefs, and thoughts. In Romans 8: It says the mind is at emity with God, because it can't understand God. God's spiritual. The mind is Satan's playground. I don't know if I can explain this well or not. I'll attempt to. In the garden Adam stood for all of mankind. Adam was able to walk with God, and talk with God. Adam has an intimate relationship with God. When the enemy tempted Adam to eat of the tree God told him not to. Adam KNEW what he was doing was against God's will. God told him NOT TO, and he still did. Adam wasn't decieved, the woman was. God told Adam, "When you eat of this tree you will surely die." Well, Adam didn't die until about 920 years after he ate of the tree, but he spiritually died INSTANTLY. He was no longer able to walk with God, and talk with him in the cool of the day. Sin cut man off from God.

Now, on with it. The enemy appears to people in many ways of temptation. He'll try any way possible to keep you from knowing who you are in Christ and what you're capable of though him. Your thoughts of doubt, aren't yours. They're suggestion, if you will, of the devil to make you ponder and think and not accept what was said as Truth. I hope that makes sense.

[This message has been edited by HellzShellz (edited 06-30-2005).]

quote: I hope that makes sense.

yes and no. it makes sense for those who to subscribe to the bastardised neo-mithraism thats calls itself 'mainstream christianity'

but it doesn't answer my question.

who was the particular 'satan' in this case?

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

yes and no. it makes sense for those who to subscribe to the bastardised neo-mithraism thats calls itself 'mainstream christianity'

but it doesn't answer my question.

who was the particular 'satan' in this case?

Ok.. More depth.. There are people who allow themselves to be vessels for Satan to work through, and those who refuse to be held in bondage by the enemy/Satan. I don't rememeber who said it, but Yes!

Isiah 14:12 How have you fallen from heaven, O [b]light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning! How you have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened and laid low the nations [O blasphemous, satanic king of Babylon!]

That's in the amplified. The amplified bible is from the original greek/hebrew text into every POSSIBLE meaning in english.

I can't really say either way..I know Isiah was a prophet. I know when I read the bible I understand it more and more as I read more and more. The best advice I can give it to seek the bible and pray on it, see what revelations you get from it, and about it. It's possible Isiah was referring to the king that destoryed Judah and Isreal, then again, it's possible that Isiah was talking about Satan who influenced the King to do the destruction he did.

I don't remember who said that sin was natrual or right to humans, but that's wrong. When you steal something you know it's wrong and you get sweaty, when you lie you fiddle and stutter. I've heard this too. "There's a way that seems right in the heart of a man." The way that seems 'right' in the heart of a man is religion. To think you can go to church come out and light up a joint in the parking lot, or walk across the street into a bar, because God'll forgive you.

I got off of point again...

I don't know if I can make you understand though. Everything you do and say is dictated by wanting a christlike character or by the enemy. The Enemy (Satan) works through people's ignorance. If you were blind, would you know the difference between a man and a woman, if no one told you what a woman looked like, and what gender you are? Everything the king of Babylon did was of the devil through his own ignorance. "My people perish for lack of knowledge." So does it matter either way?

hellz you are missing the point. the tempter of christ was a flesh and blood human. anyone who knows their bible should be able to take an educated guess at his name and occupation.

you may however argue the tempter was himself a dupe of this supernatural evil entity you believe in .

It doesn't say anywhere that he was Satan. In the Garden Of Eden there was a serpent who told Eve that god had lied to her when he said that she would die went she ate from The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

It doesn't say anywhere that he was Satan. In the Garden Of Eden there was a serpent who told Eve that god had lied to her when he said that she would die went she ate from The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil.

Cheers,

Lost

I don't know if this is refering to the garden though:

"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Rev. 12:9).

Upon reading through the Bible in the passages this question refers to, the only information I've found is thus:

When Satan tempted Jesus, he appealed to three things: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. First he challenged Jesus, after a 40-day fast, to use his powers to make food and satisfy His fleshly needs. Then he challenged Jesus to look at the world from a high place and offered Him dominion over all He saw. Finally, he tempted Jesus to throw Himself down from a tower, saying that surely, as God's son, He would be saved - an appeal to pride.

Jesus withstood all these temptations, as per WHO Satan was, I found no mention of this--

-Val

quote:Originally posted by Valmont:

Upon reading through the Bible in the passages this question refers to, the only information I've found is thus:

Jesus withstood all these temptations, as per WHO Satan was, I found no mention of this--

-Val

anyone who knows their bible should be able to take an educated guess at his name and occupation.

-try reading it like you'd read a newspaper report. look for clues to the identity of 'satan'.

Here is my guess, let me know what you think about it Jack:

Satan was Jesus. What I mean is that it was all internal conflict, not another physical person.



Oops.. profession: carpenter. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by malaria (edited 07-01-2005).]

Satan is a self image

"And another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.4And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven, and threw them to the earth . . . " (Rev. 12:3-4).

Thats one hell of a self image.

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

I could be wrong but there is no real reference of Satan before Jerome. Lucifer is Jeromes translation and Satan developed after too. Lucifer was the highest archangel.

There is so much relating to this; from "war in heaven". But do angels have the will and so called mortal will to fight for the war to start in the first place.

Satan/Sataniel/Samuel/Lucifer supposed to of rebelled against god; was cast down and became the devil and all angels that followed became demons. Devil is derived from diabolos (to slander), which relates to an evil entity created in western religions.

The "war in heaven" apparently started because God told the angels to obey no one but him. But created man and said they were superior to angels; commanding angels to bow before them. Lucifer refused proclaiming to only bow before God. So he was expelled for refusing to to bow to anyone but God. So is one story in a midst of so many.

Regards to role et cetera, I'm a bit amiss to if I covered that at all. His role was an archangel before he was expelled. The role as Lucifer is maybe to tempt the mankind to lessen the appeal to God and maybe make angels superior to mankind in some invisible battle.

Jack, if I am not mistaken, this is a riddle of some sorts. Posing it as a legitimate question is meant to throw off anyone that might have an answer.

Just to be sure I hadn't missed something vitally important from this story, I looked it up in my Complete Jewish Bible, translated by David H Stern ( http://tinyurl.com/d2nth ), and this is what it says (the chapters and verses are in different places than they would be in a standard American Bible):

Mattityahu (Matthew) 4:1 - "The the Spirit led Yeshua up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Adversary. 2 After Yeshua had fasted forty days and nights, he was hungry. 3 The Tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, order these stones to become bread." 4 But he answered, "The Tanakh says, 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of Adonai.'" (Deuteronomy 8:3)

5 The the Adversary took him to the holy city and set him on the highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "jump ! For the Tanakh says, ' He will order His angels to be responsible for you...They will support you with their hands, so that you will not hurt your feet on the stones.'"

7 Yeshua replied to him, "But it also says, 'Do not put Adonai your God to the test.'"

8 Once more the Adversary took him up to the summit of a very high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the world in all their glory, 9 and said to him, "All this I will give you if you will bow down and worship me."

10 "Away with you, Satan !" Yeshua told him, "For the Tanakh says, 'Worship Adonai your God, and serve only Him.'"

11 The the Adversary let him alone, and angels came and took care of him.

-------------------------------------------

Now, the term "Adversary" is used many other times in this version of the Bible, and it is always referring to Satan.

One example is that of the story of Job.

Iyov (JOB) 1:6 - It happened one day that the sons of God came to serve Adonai, and among them came the Adversary [Hebrew:Satan]. 7 Adonai asked the Adversary, "Where are you coming from ?" The Adversary answered Adonai, "from roaming through the earth, wandering here and there."

Now, Job lived HUNDREDS of years before Jesus came to be.

If that is true, then how could someone by the name of "Adversary" exist during both of these mens lives ?

This Bible is a translation directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, by a Jewish scholar. This translation was recently completed, in 1998.

The reason I use this version is that it is probably as close to accurate as you're going to get, as far as translations are concerned.

That being the case, the use of the title "Adversary" in both stories makes it highly unlikely that the individual tempting Jesus in the desert was, in fact, a human being.

So, are you going to let us in on the punchline, or are you enjoying being coy ?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

i just got done looking at the Strong's for the accounts in Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13 and Luke 4:1-13.

i didnt take the time or effort to double check the Greek text to see if Strong's is presenting the correct word & definition, but from this i dont see the answer to your riddle.

My guess (and only a guess):

name: Simon (Peter)

occupation:fisherman

Samael?

I've heard that is his name before, but I'm not sure what his job is(assuming it isn't an angel of death type occupation).

Edit: Lawyer(not a joke)?

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 07-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

the 'satan' in the temptation of christ was a human being.

i'm asking who it was and what he did to earn his daily schekels (yes it was a 'he').



i would like no kno where u saw this

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Christians invented the story of Lucifer and the Fall and proposed a power nearly equal, but opposite to God, entirely against his will that tempts mankind and brings them ruin through sin.

I will again reference the version from the Complete Jewish Bible...

Isaiah 14:12-14 - "How did you come to fall from the heavens (since when do men fall from heaven ?), morning star, son of the dawn ?

How did you come to be cut to the ground, conqueror of nations ?

You thought to yourself, 'I will scale the heavens, I will raise my throne above God's stars. I will sit on the Mount of Assembly far away in the north. I will rise past the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like Most High. (Pretty lofty goals, even for a MAN)'

This verse is presumably referring to the King of Babylon [Hebrew:Bavel].

When we read the next set of verses (written about the King of Tyre), we see a striking parallel between Satan and man (King of Tyre). If you can't decipher that from the text, then it is intentionally so, and not because Christians have it wrong.

Ezekiel 28:11-19 - The word of Adonai came to me: 12 "Human being, raise a lament for the king of Tzor, and tell him that Adonai Elohim says:

'You put the seal on perfection; you were full of wisdom and perfect in beauty; 13 you were in 'Eden (Who else is described as having lived in the garden of Eden besides Adam and Eve ?), the garden of God; covered with all kinds of precious stones - carnelians, topaz, diamonds, beryl, onyx, jasper, sapphires, green feldspar, emeralds; your pendants and jewels were made of gold, prepared the day you were created. (What other human besides Adam and Eve were "created" ?)

You seem to imply that the term “morning star”, meaning Venus (which I agree with), is not relating to Satan.

If this is true, how do you explain Job 38:4-7 ?

“Where were you when I founded the earth ? Tell me, if you know so much. Do you know who determined its dimensions or who stretched the measuring line across it ? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the MORNING STARS sang together, and the SONS OF GOD shouted for joy ?

That passage is clearly talking about angels.

If that is so, then how can the same description be applied to a human, as seen in Isaiah ?

And while I know you don’t think the New Testament is God’s inspired word, I want to point out a verse that completely supports the idea that Satan was cast out of Heaven, along with his biddies (which in turn supports your statement that this is a part of Christian theology):

2 Peter 2:4 – “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment…”

Just to clarify, God sent the sinful angels to Hell. They chose to rebel; having a choice indicates possession of free will.

quote:The whole idea is ridiculous…

Ridiculous to whom ? A Jew, who has everything to lose from acknowledging the scriptures that Christians consider to be truth as just that, or to the rest of the pagan world ?

I hate to do this, Seph, but you have admitted to being a Christian but 4 short months ago. Your conversion to Judaism is wonderful, since it brings you closer to your heritage and your divine rights as one of God’s chosen people…however, you believed the Christian Bible (New Testament included !) to be true, not so long ago, and now you have the audacity to call it “ridiculous”.

I think that word is a bit strong, and should not be used lightly. I would expect more from you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:…in that it not only supposes that angels have free will equal to our own and are capable of rebelling, but also challenges the absolute authority of God over all goings on in the universe by postulating that it is possible for things to occur that are contrary to his will.

First of all, Christianity (as far as the Bible is concerned) does not, in ANY way, shape, or form, challenge God’s absolute authority. In this, I think you have either been misled by your own misperceptions, or you don’t know any Biblically sound Christians.

From my experience and understanding, Satan IS God’s creation, and Satan does have free will (as referenced in the 2 Peter passage), though perhaps not on the same level as a human.

The purpose of Satan is to tempt us, so that we can learn to become completely dependent upon God (for salvation from sin).

This is not to say that God has no control over Satan…He allows Satan free reign over the earth, for now. He could end it any time He wished, but He doesn’t.

Christianity agrees with you about Satan: “accusing mankind for its sins, and tempting them when necessary to prove his point. He functions completely in accordance with the will of God.”

But I do feel the need to clarify this…functioning completely in accordance with God’s will does not mean that God is the puppeteer of Satan’s actions. It means that God uses what Satan does (from his own free will) to work together with His perfect plan.

This should be clarified further to note that Satan is not on God’s team. He IS God’s Adversary, but God knew He would be before Satan was even created.

quote:This is convenient for their theology in that the once hard to understand evils of the world, and their place in God's purpose, fit neatly into the domain of another being that can assume blame and infamy for them.

I don’t know too many Christians that believe that Satan MAKES them do anything, therefore, how can they blame him ?

We go to Hell because of our OWN sin. Redemption is gained for OUR sins, not the sins of Satan.

He is the tempter, for sure…he slips in through the back door and whispers under the table, but he can’t FORCE us to sin. We choose of our own accord, and must repent of our own accord.

By the way, you forgot to say, “According to Judaism.”

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

question: who was satan? (his probable name and occupation).



Satan-Sataniel or Samuel and Attorney.

Good morning http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)(its 8 am here0

no digi,no riddle

i'll write up the answer and post it this afternoon.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

i just got done looking at the Strong's for the accounts in Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13 and Luke 4:1-13.

i didnt take the time or effort to double check the Greek text to see if Strong's is presenting the correct word & definition, but from this i dont see the answer to your riddle.

My guess (and only a guess):

name: Simon (Peter)

occupation:fisherman



nope but it was the best guess so far http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

think about the things we are told in the passage about the 'satan'....

I'm going to assume it isn't Samael and guess Nimrod.

Edit: Belial? Mastemah? Apollyon? Asmodeus?

Beelzebub?(I don't think this has been mentioned yet)

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 07-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I'm going to assume it isn't Samael and guess Nimrod.

Edit: Belial? Mastemah? Apollyon? Asmodeus?

Beelzebub?(I don't think this has been mentioned yet)



uhm NO!

a basic rule of bible scholarship is to exhaust the natural before starting with the supernatural unless the scripture says otherwise.

the tempter in the account (and i do think it an historical account) is definately human.

Why aren't you just telling us who YOU think it is ?

By the way, thanks for recognizing the HUGE amount of time I spent on my post.

:P

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Since Lucifer was never an Angel to begin with, I think you fail the question.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

No Lucifer was an angel, get your facts right, and he was banished from heaven because he was pissed that God gave humans free choice and not angels this made Lucifer/Satan mad so he went to hell

Another quote

"It is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven."

You wood need expierience(Spel?) to say that also where else does he come from if not him being and old heaven worker.

Please excuse me if it did not make perfect sense, i am shit at putting things down in writing.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



nope but it was the best guess so far http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

think about the things we are told in the passage about the 'satan'....



In the Book of Mark, this account is right after His baptism by John (infact, i think it says, "immediately") and it is before Jesus recruiting His Disciples.

the reason i guessed Peter, is that later, Jesus tells Peter to "get behind me Satan".

Another guess that i had was Judas, since he is said to have been overcome with the devil... but this too, is a bad guess, since again, the 40 days in the wilderness appears to be before recruitment.

The answer to the riddle (although i dont agree) is, i think John the Baptist.

right first off we should forget any rubbish about some mythical winged Über Nasty being involved ! You may care to believe in a devil but please don't arse rape biblical text to do it.

There is nothing supernatural in this account.

i'll say this simply but this is all easily checkable so i won't give references etc.

You remember those 'Children's Bible' style images of satan flying up a mountain with JC in tow? well the greek word used simply means 'to lead' or 'to guide'. yep they both walked up the mountain.

'Satan' showed JC all the 'kingsdom of world' -that's supernatural,surely?

Nope! The phrase had a couple of meanings back then. It could either refer to the roman empire around the med or ,as in this case, the ancient kingdoms of judea,samaria,israel etc. I don't know but i'm fairly sure there's mountains in Israel that on a clear day in 'a moment of time' you can see most if not all those kingdoms. maybe someone there could confirm this?

But satan placed JC on the pinancle of the temple-they must have flown?

No. we know from other ancient texts that that phrase actually describes some sort of gallery or platform overlooking the temple.

and thats a massive clue to the identity of the 'satan' in this account.

xteem, some good guesses again. infact cases could be made for all of the ones you name but there is still a much stronger contestant.

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-01-2005).]

it is also important to remember that 'to tempt' had a different meaning back then. today we use it to describe enticing someone to do ill.

but the original meaning ,as used in the account, means 'to test' or 'to assay'...

*goes off for coffee* i'l look back later.

quote:Originally posted by midgetbasketball:

No Lucifer was an angel, get your facts right, and he was banished from heaven because he was pissed that God gave humans free choice and not angels this made Lucifer/Satan mad so he went to hell.

once again I will point out the flaw in the angels didnt have free will story. If angels didnt have free will then they couldn't have rebelled against god, for they wouldn't have had the free will to do so.



[This message has been edited by Nemisis (edited 07-01-2005).]

hi nemi.

Herod Antipas

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

Herod Antipas



very good but no i still think there was a better candiadate. consider the offer 'satan' made to jesus. herod antipas didn't have that kind of power.

only one man could make jesus ruler of all israel/judea/samaria etc



and no i don't mean pilatus or Caesar.. (pontius didn't have that kind of power,and the jews would not have accepted any king created by Caesar.)



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

once again I will point out the flaw in the angels didnt have free will story. If angels didnt have free will then they couldn't have rebelled against god, for they wouldn't have had the free will to do so.

Hmmmm i've actually never thought of it like that. Kind of like hiding something ( logical fallacies ) right infront of your nose?

Yes. But he may well have been the middle man between the ruler who could and was presenting said offer to him.

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

Yes. But he may well have been the middle man between the ruler who could and was presenting said offer to him.



yes thats possible, although the fact that 'satan' had access to the tempe gallery and tested jesus by quoting scripture that was obscure even back then does seem to point to someoine else.

Well, we have Joseph ben Caiaphas who had been appointed high priest, but his authority was limited, was it not?

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

Well, we have Joseph ben Caiaphas who had been appointed high priest, but his authority was limited, was it not?





bingo ! or annanas .

proskuneo {pros-koo-neh'-o}

TDNT Reference Root Word

TDNT - 6:758,948 from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand)

Part of Speech

v

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

1) to the Jewish high priests

2) to God

3) to Christ

4) to heavenly beings

Are you sure it was only one man, and not for instance the Sanhedrin?

Possibly separate accounts of the 'trial'?

[This message has been edited by Flesh (edited 07-01-2005).]

and yes his power was limited in some ways. but if he'd proclaimed jesus the real messiah...

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

Are you sure it was only one man, and not for instance the Sanhedrin?

Possibly separate accounts of the 'trial'?





no i'm not sure. this is just a bit of biblical guesswork.

it is noteworthy how jesus 'disses' the high priest at his trial. how he gets slapped for not showing due reverence...

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

and yes his power was limited in some ways. but if he'd proclaimed jesus the real messiah...



What then, might have happened?

What of Rome?

Rome would still have quashed it, don't you think?

*I added your post above. You got ahead of my thoughts with your posts. Or I got ahead of yours. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)*



[This message has been edited by Flesh (edited 07-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

it is noteworthy how jesus 'disses' the high priest at his trial. how he gets slapped for not showing due reverence...



As if they had discussed this before and he still stands firm?

These clods had no idea where Jesus was coming from, yet were afraid of losing their positions of authority? Why?

If you are correct, then they were trying to enlist him into their service.

Interesting ideas there jack.





[This message has been edited by Flesh (edited 07-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

What then, might have happened?

What of Rome?

Rome would still have quashed it, don't you think?

*I added your post above. You got ahead of my thoughts with your posts.*



good points. but i think caiaphas could have sold the romans on jesus as a better client king than herod. or at least that he thought he could.

modern scholarship accepts by and large that JC had a legit claim to the throne.(in a way herod didn't). the people would have united under him and all the troubles in the province would have ceased.

the thing about pilate and caiaphas was that they were consummate politians. they made bush look like the drooling major motor-neuron damaged idiot that he is...probably because their own heads were very much at stake.



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



no i'm not sure. this is just a bit of biblical guesswork.



If you are correct, then it suggests that there was an alliance somewhere in Rome?

Maybe Emperor Tiberius? He did have the golden shields that Pointius Pilate had put up in Jerusalem taken down.

I'm getting way ahead of myself here. I'm no scholar.



[This message has been edited by Flesh (edited 07-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:



If you are correct, then it suggests that there was an alliance somewhere in Rome?

Maybe Emperor Tiberius? He did have the golden shields that Pointius Pilate had put up in Jerusalem taken down.

possibly but this is all very subjective. its very easy to fall into the trap of building conspiracy threories about JC.

the point of my question was to show that its possible to apply the principles of good scholarship in an hist./crit. way to a bible passage and come up with something that makes sense and actually strengthens faith (as opposed to fairy tales of winged devils which just make a mockery of the scripture).

my guess is that at the time of JC you had messias popping up left right and centre. the sanhedrin had the reponisibilty to test each claim.

this account is a factual historical record of part of the 'testing' of JC.

as 'satan' demanded defferance i'm guessing it was caiaphas personally.

btw if anyone knows the basis for the 'turn bread into stones ' challenge i'd be interested to hear.

Well, Tiberius's reign was in trouble about that time I do believe. It is possible.

But why would they not have approached a different messiah in place of Jesus if there were quite a few about?

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

possibly but this is all very subjective. its very easy to fall into the trap of building conspiracy threories about JC.

the point of my question was to show that its possible to apply the principles of good scholarship in an hist./crit. way to a bible passage and come up with something that makes sense and actually strengthens faith (as opposed to fairy tales of winged devils which just make a mockery of the scripture).

my guess is that at the time of JC you had messias popping up left right and centre. the sanhedrin had the reponisibilty to test each claim.

this account is a factual historical record of part of the 'testing' of JC.

as 'satan' demanded defferance i'm guessing it was caiaphas personally.

btw if anyone knows the basis for the 'turn bread into stones ' challenge i'd be interested to hear.

I found this:

quote:Temptation in Genesis - Eve to Matthew - Jesus.

Appeal to Physical Appetite

You may eat of the tree (Gen. 3:1)

You may eat by changing stones to bread (Matt. 4:3)



Appeal to Personal Gain

You will not die (Gen. 3:4).

You will not hurt your foot (Matt. 4;6).



Appeal to Power and Glory

You will be like God (Gen. 3:5).

You will have all the world’s Kingdoms (Matt. 4;8-9}



This reflection to Geneisis sort of shows how both could be satan and not human.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



btw if anyone knows the basis for the 'turn bread into stones ' challenge i'd be interested to hear.

Do you mean 'turn stones into bread'?

quote:Originally posted by vice:



This reflection to Geneisis sort of shows how both could be satan and not human.

the usual misinformed drivel.(not you vice, i mean the author of your quote)

Digi does it better...much better.

you could read psalm 91...

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

Do you mean 'turn stones into bread'?



lol yes my bad. thanx

*edit arrrgh raped by flood control

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

the usual misinformed drivel.(not you vice, i mean the author of your quote)

Digi does it better...much better.

You know that there is a enemy called satan in the old testament, right?

Why would JC describe a person as satan in matt 4:10?

Bit misleading!

quote:You know that there is a enemy called satan in the old testament, right?

there's your problem there, right there...

read the first couple of lines that Sephiroth wrote.

OK

What about this:

Matt 4:1... a devil?

Tempter? (3)

Asked to be worshiped? (9)



[This message has been edited by vice (edited 07-01-2005).]

In Aramaic people who are stubborn and set are often referred to as 'stones'. Whereas 'bread' signifies friendship. At least that is my understanding of it.

So, turning stones into bread could be referring to 'the people', not actual stones.

Is that your question?

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

In Aramaic people who are stubborn and set are often referred to as 'stones'. Whereas 'bread' signifies friendship. At least that is my understanding of it.

So, turning stones into bread could be referring to 'the people', not actual stones.

Is that your question?

maybe...

first off.,it was a genuine question , i have no idea as to the correct answer.

i'm guessing 'satan' was referring to a non biblical scripture or maybe to the giving of the 10 commandments when moses finally gets his arse off the mount and says ' i haven't eaten bread for 40 days'.

one thing is however clear: satan's question was directed to determining jesus' claim to messiahship (although he didn't claim it i think)>

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

In Aramaic people who are stubborn and set are often referred to as 'stones'. Whereas 'bread' signifies friendship. At least that is my understanding of it.

So, turning stones into bread could be referring to 'the people', not actual stones.

Is that your question?



I doubt it, it says quite clearly that he fasted for 40 days + 40 nights and afterward he was "hungred" then the tempter offered the stones. Matt 4:1-3

It does not say for what he was fasting. People fasted for reasons. I think it is the reason that is the focus. Not the food.

Btw, the number forty is a holy number: a period of preparation, fasting and prayer.

Probably not a literal time period.



[This message has been edited by Flesh (edited 07-01-2005).]

*is off to drink coffee and watch james bond with the kids*

later dudes

oh and well done flesh .

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

It does not say for what he was fasting. People fasted for reasons. I think it is the reason that is the focus. Not the food.

Well I think it seems important when you say this:

quote:So, turning stones into bread could be referring to 'the people', not actual stones.

Jesus was led by the spirit when he went into the wilderness to be TEMPTED.

Maybe His abstainence of food was to make His mind clearer for temptations... of which He knew were coming. Or maybe he was just waiting around because He knew the devil would only tempt Him in his weakened sate

Jesus relied on God’s word in His defense. Thats the important lesson He is showing in the scripture.

He did not rely on God's 'word' in his defense. He maintained his alliance to God over an alliance with man. He could not be bought.

I like Jack's rendering of this.

quote:Originally posted by Flesh:

He did not rely on God's 'word' in his defense. He maintained his alliance to God over an alliance with man. He could not be bought.

I like Jack's rendering of this.

really?:

Jesus, who is God in flesh, resisted the devil by relying on God’s word.

When Satan said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread,"

*Jesus said, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’"



When Satan said, "If You are the Son of God throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give His angels charge concerning You’; and ‘On their hands they will bear You up, Lest You strike Your foot against a stone.’"

*Jesus said, "It is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’"



When Satan said, "All these kingdoms and thrones things will I give You, if You fall down and worship me."

*Jesus said "Begone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’"

He seems to use Gods word here!

I agree Jacko could be onto something.



[This message has been edited by vice (edited 07-01-2005).]

Jack, i'm puzzled. The one of the things i disagree with, is: This happened prior to His(the) claim to messiahship. According to the gospel accounts, this was at the very beginning of His ministry.



In Matthew, it is right after his baptism.

In Mark 1:12-13, it says "And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness 40 days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him."

The reason i bolded 'Spirit' and 'Satan' is, if what you said about the high priest being satan is true, then that would imply that these are both refering to the same person, wouldnt it?

The one thing that does give some possible credence to what you said, is in the account of Luke. Again, it is almost right after the baptism by John, but between the baptism and the "walk about" in the wilderness, is the geneologies of Jesus... this might have been 'a presenting' of Jesus to the high priests i.e. high priests (i think it would have had to have been both Annas and Caiaphas) go down to see what the commotion with John is all about, john presents Jesus.

In order to even consider taking the claim serious, His ancestry would have had to have been "checked out".

I still disagree, but if you would be willing, could you try to "unpuzzle" me?

tis koffje time brb and i'll try an answer your point then.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

tis koffje time brb and i'll try an answer your point then.



i agree. wife should be getting up pretty soon, so i'm gonna put some coffee on for us too.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Jack, i'm puzzled. The one of the things i disagree with, is: This happened prior to His(the) claim to messiahship. According to the gospel accounts, this was at the very beginning of His ministry.



one of the most important discoveries of the last 150 years of biblical study was the fact that the cannonical synoptic gospels aren't chronologies.

quote:In Matthew, it is right after his baptism.

you have to bear in mine that the original christians only considered jesus to have become the messiah/son of god at his baptism

quote:In Mark 1:12-13, it says "And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness 40 days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him."

The reason i bolded 'Spirit' and 'Satan' is, if what you said about the high priest being satan is true, then that would imply that these are both refering to the same person, wouldnt it?

no i see no reason to assume that. many scholars have argued successfully that the 'spirit of god/ spirit of the lord/holy spirit' can indeed refer to a person. that may well be the case here too.

i'll have to check...

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-02-2005).]

thanks for the reply.

i am aware that:

quote:one of the most important discoveries of the last 150 years of biblical study was the fact that the cannonical synoptic gospels aren't chronologies.



but (weak arguement first) all three accounts are proceeded by the baptism. And in Luke's account, (stronger arguement) he not only gives the time of John's ministry started(Luke 3:1-2) (although it doesnt say how long John was "working" before baptizing Jesus) but Luke also says that Jesus was "about 30 YO", which i seem to recall that being the age priests entered their office (pointing to the begining of Jesus' ministry~~ not exactly, but close enough for TOTSE)..

OK, now for my strongest (i hope) arguement..

In Mark's account, the word 'euthus'-- rendered "immediately" is used.



I think these point to a chronology of events.



As far as my "spirit/satan" question; i used the word "would" and should have used the word "could"... but in either case, your answer covers this and refutes me (i.e. similar to these statements: "he is a godly person" and "that child is such a devil")



At anyrate, i still disagree with the idea that the satan tempting Jesus was a human, but you have made excellent points for the possibility.

Read Ezekiel 28. Apparently the fall of the king of Babylon was compared to the Fall of Satan. If you read Jeremiah, You see that when God turns Judah and Israel over to the ENEMY, the BABYLONIANS destory them. Their had to be punishment for sin. (I pray this doesn't happen to America, or the world.) The king of Babylon was the vessel used by the enemy to destory Judah and Israel.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Read Ezekiel 28. Apparently the fall of the king of Babylon was compared to the Fall of Satan. If you read Jeremiah, You see that when God turns Judah and Israel over to the ENEMY, the BABYLONIANS destory them. Their had to be punishment for sin. (I pray this doesn't happen to America, or the world.) The king of Babylon was the vessel used by the enemy to destory Judah and Israel.



not quite sure what the point is that you are trying to make.