Devil tempting Jesus in the desert questions

[Inquiry]

Well the Nicene creed was written to counter new heresies, so the additions are not overzealous. Instead they are rebuttals to overzealous claims.

Also, though things in this world are temporary they are also eternal where God is involved. There aren’t thousands of masses a year, for instance, there is one Mass, one Body, one Blood, forever. The matter of the incarnation may have been created, but Christ is still eternally begotten regardless of the status of his flesh.

 

[Maximus1]

How about a different approach to the accounts( 3 Gospels).
Jesus was fully man and fully God.
The appeal wasn’t likely to tempt God was it? That would make the Devil somehow stronger and in ways there is that appearance in the text.
There is fully man as well. Jesus was about to embark upon a mission of leadership.
What are the universal temptations we all face and should, before we take power?
Misuse of power you can identify as “practical everyday power. "
Misuse of power one can identify " religious power” and" misuse of political power."
This tracks the temptations as they unfold chronologically.
In each temptation Jesus is tempted to MISUSE POWER for a Purpose Less than GOD’S PURPOSE.
Jesus, who possessed a human soul and was fully man ENGAGED temptations that all men who are about to exercise power confront. The misuse of power disordered from God’s purpose.
Maybe if you reread the passages in light of this idea, the questions will be limited.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Just to be clear, I’m not saying the temptation in the desert, nor the Magnificat never happened.

All I’m saying is, it is unlikely to have happened as a literal interpretation of the Scriptures.

The main belief in the Catholic Church is, “Christ as died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.” Everything else is built off of these three.

 

[Dan_Defender]

As we don’t know when Mary was assumed, it is very possible that Luke knew her.

There is even a tradition that Luke himself was one of the two on the road to Emmaus.

 

[Gorgias]

Regarding whether or not Satan knew Jesus was the God/Son of God:

It’s interesting that Satan says " “ IF you are the Son of God, command this stone…” and “ IF you are the Son of God, throw yourself down…” ---- he doesn’t say “ Since you are the Son of God…” (or something equivalent).

It’s a Koine Greek conditional statement, not a statement in English. So, depending on what class conditional it is (and there are four classes!), the word you see translated into English as “if” could really mean:

• “ok, for the sake of argument, let’s presume that this might be true”
• “ok, for the sake of argument, let’s presume that this is untrue”
• “ok… maybe this might come true, sometime in the future” or “hypothetically speaking…” or “OK… I’m not saying that this is literally true in any specific case, but generally speaking…”
• “ok… maybe it’s possible that this might be true…”

So, no: “if” as “since” isn’t really in play here, so we can’t say “he didn’t write ‘since’, so it means he doesn’t know it’s true”.

Basically it boils down to an influential member of the church deciding against a particular viewpoint not because that view can be proven incorrect and their view correct but because they didn’t like the person with the opposing views and so they gathered support for their cause.

Hmm… I’m not certain that’s a fair characterization. Who makes the case that you’re reporting here?

 

[otjm]

I had never heard that.

Looking at the passage, as it occurred the evening after the Resurrection, it would seem from the language that the two were present at the Last Supper - "they recognized Him in the breaking for the Bread would not make sense if they had not seen that on the Thursday preceding.

 

[petra22]

id the temptations occur? I see no reason not to believe they did. How did the Gospel writers know? From Christ. When? we don’t know, because that was irrelevant to the purpose of the writers.

Maybe Jesus related the experience to his mother and she told St. John or other apostles…

 

[otjm]

That, or He told the Apostles directly. He spent three years with them; it would come as no surprise to me that He related the matter.

Again, until standing before the Sanhedrin, He was indirect about His identity with everyone, providing all with indirect information to lead them to their discovery of His identity.

 

[Gorgias]

I will get names and book titles for you tomorrow.

thanks!

 

[JGD]

JGD:

Regarding whether or not Satan knew Jesus was the God/Son of God:

It’s interesting that Satan says " “ IF you are the Son of God, command this stone…” and “ IF you are the Son of God, throw yourself down…” ---- he doesn’t say “ Since you are the Son of God…” (or something equivalent).

It’s a Koine Greek conditional statement, not a statement in English. So, depending on what class conditional it is (and there are four classes!), the word you see translated into English as “if” could really mean:

• “ok, for the sake of argument, let’s presume that this might be true”
• “ok, for the sake of argument, let’s presume that this is untrue”
• “ok… maybe this might come true, sometime in the future” or “hypothetically speaking…” or “OK… I’m not saying that this is literally true in any specific case, but generally speaking…”
• “ok… maybe it’s possible that this might be true…”

So, no: “if” as “since” isn’t really in play here, so we can’t say “he didn’t write ‘since’, so it means he doesn’t know it’s true”.

I’m missing your point. I
If you’re saying the Greek word couldn’t be translated “since”, I agree. That was my point! I was talking about the word Satan used versus other word/s he (Satan) would have used if he was certain. As to the Greek word used by the gospel writers, they were writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit so I’m sure it’s an accurate translation from the Aramaic (if that’s the language Satan used. )
Sorry I wasn’t more clear in my original post.

 

[Dan_Defender]

"they recognized Him in the breaking for the Bread would not make sense if they had not seen that on the Thursday preceding.

If Luke was a disciple at this point, he would have heard about the breaking of the bread from the Apostles. Or he could not have known the significance of breaking the bread at the moment it happened, but since he was writing his gospel years later he knew it at that point.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m missing your point. I
If you’re saying the Greek word couldn’t be translated “since”, I agree. That was my point!

No… I’m saying that you can’t say either “it means ‘since’” or “it doesn’t mean ‘since’”. The meaning is far more nuanced than the assertion you made (“the devil didn’t say ‘since’, and therefore, that implies he didn’t know who Jesus was”).

I was talking about the word Satan used versus other word/s he (Satan) would have used if he was certain.

The phrasing of the account uses Greek conditional statements – essentially, “if…then” statements. They’re expressed in the way that Greek conditional statements are constructed. So, you can’t look at one word and say “see! It’s not ‘since’!!! He didn’t know!”

I’m sure it’s an accurate translation from the Aramaic

The evangelist isn’t “translating from the Aramaic”; he’s telling the story in Greek.

 

[JGD]

Jesus would have been the original source and He spoke Aramaic (or Hebrew), as did the apostles, so somewhere along the line it would have been translated from Aramaic into Greek. There is evidence in the early Church fathers that Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic. The linked article says this was not questioned until the 16th century!

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus would have been the original source and He spoke Aramaic (or Hebrew) - as did the apostles. So somewhere along the line it would have been translated from Aramaic to Greek.

No. It would have been written originally in Greek.

Matthew is an interesting case, though. There are claims that it was written in Hebrew first, but they’re inconclusive, and although some say “yea”, others say “nay”. Hardly a consensus.

The linked article says this was not questioned until the 16th century!

That the earth rotates around the sun wasn’t questioned for quite a while, either… but that doesn’t prove that it’s not the case!

 

[JGD]

I didn’t say “written” - I said "somewhere along the line it would have been translated from Aramaic to Greek. I have no idea or opinion whether the first Greek translation was presented in writing or preached orally and eventually written down, but it would have required translation at some point. An exception of course would be if the Holy Spirit revealed the text to the evangelists supernaturally in Greek instead of the Aramaic used by Jesus.

Re Matthew’s gospel: 16th century is a loooong time for the Church to have been misinformed. And the evidence against an Aramaic original is really flimsy, at least in my opinion. If the article is correct, it was put forth by one scholar just because there was no original Aramaic/Hebrew text in existence anymore.

That the earth rotates around the sun wasn’t questioned for quite a while, either… but that doesn’t prove that it’s not the case!

?? Is someone questioning it now?!
Oh well, God didn’t say He’d to protect science.

 

[Gorgias]

I didn’t say “written” - I said "somewhere along the line it would have been translated from Aramaic to Greek.

That’s the whole point: only one of the four Gospels is even claimed (by a minority of scholars) as potentially translated from Hebrew to Greek. The others are accepted being originally written in Koine Greek.

An exception of course would be if the Holy Spirit revealed the text to the evangelists supernaturally in Greek instead of the Aramaic used by Jesus.

That’s not how the Catholic Church understands the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; it’s not dictation!

Sorry, I meant to get a list for you yesterday.

Thanks! Which of these makes the claim that you made here (that Church doctrine is more a matter of politics and personal animus than theological considerations)?