Was the temptation of Jesus by the devil real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joseie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tim_D said:
…
…
The temptation narrative does not convey (to me, at least) the same genuiness that much of the Gospels convey. I can imagine Jesus at the wedding in Cana…I can see him with Mary and Martha after Lazarus died…I can see him with the many named people of the Gospels but the temptation narrative itself just seems to be out of place, a unique occurrence that upsets the flow of the Gospels.
Click to expand...
Right! Of all the incidences said in the gospels ,this alone stands apart.Further the third test(showing kingdoms of the world) neither appears to have happened in reality nor
contains an iota of temptation element as far as Jesus is concerned.When this is read during mass(invariably on start of lent season) I have a feeling that only very few take it as genuine,expecially the third test.
 
This is one problem I have with the bible in general, its almost impossible to determine if something it literal, symbolic, etc especially when it COULD be any of them, depending on the verse or section, its almost like it was intentionally written in a manner to be the most confusing.

But if the will of God is for as many people as possible to choose him freely, wouldnt it much more effective and beneficial to make things simpler to understand for the reader, especially considering if someone makes even a slight mistake in determining this, it could have HUGE implications.
 
Tim_D said:
Oh, I see. So you get to decide what is symbolic in the Gospels and what is literal?

Is it not enough for Jesus to say “amen, amen I say to you…?” Isn’t that enough to make it literal?

Using your logic, “If the Bible tells us that Jesus said to pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin, then we are to pluck out our eye.”
Click to expand...
You’re making a grave mistake and taking my words out of context. Oh wait why I am suprised? You take Jesus words out of context. :rolleyes:

So you get to decide if an event happened or not? Maybe Jesus wasn’t crucified. Don’t be suprised. After all, I’m using your logic. :mad:
 
joseie said:
Further the third test(showing kingdoms of the world) neither appears to have happened in reality nor contains an iota of temptation element as far as Jesus is concerned.
Click to expand...
Yep! Also, there is the mysterious “40 days” yet again in relation to His fasting without food or water. How many times has “40 days” been used in scripture to document an indeterminate amount of time? A person can go 40 days without food but more than 3 days without water, especially in the desert, is a death sentence.

Again, I agree with the point that I’ve already mentioned that this episode is an attempt to show early Christians that Jesus was, at the same time, both God and man.
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
You’re making a grave mistake and taking my words out of context. Oh wait why I am suprised? You take Jesus words out of context. :rolleyes:

So you get to decide if an event happened or not? Maybe Jesus wasn’t crucified. Don’t be suprised. After all, I’m using your logic. :mad:
Click to expand...
Oh, give it a break. You are the one who said that if the Bible says it, then it happens. If clinging to a literalist interpretation is your cup of tea then fine but even the Church does not teach biblical literalism.

My position is based on what I heard from a Catholic priest. What he said makes sense to me, so I accept it. Apparently, I’m not the only one, either. But then, what else what you expect from a* modernist.*…😦
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
Maybe Jesus wasn’t crucified. Don’t be suprised. After all, I’m using your logic. :mad:
Click to expand...
Actually, we recite at Mass that Christ was indeed crucified, so it would intellectually dishonest to participate in such a public recitation of the faith if one does not personally subscribe to it.

Nowhere do we proclaim the literalism of the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 4.
 
Tim_D said:
Oh, give it a break. You are the one who said that if the Bible says it, then it happens. If clinging to a literalist interpretation is your cup of tea then fine but even the Church does not teach biblical literalism.

My position is based on what I heard from a Catholic priest. What he said makes sense to me, so I accept it. Apparently, I’m not the only one, either. But then, what else what you expect from a* modernist.*…😦
Click to expand...
Oh give it a break. I said “If the Bible says it happened it happened.” The Eucharist is an example of literal interpretation. Context, context, context.

We are supposed to filter one’s opinions and test the spirits. Even with priests.
 
Tim_D said:
Actually, we recite at Mass that Christ was indeed crucified, so it would intellectually dishonest to participate in such a public recitation of the faith if one does not personally subscribe to it.

Nowhere do we proclaim the literalism of the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 4.
Click to expand...
Jesus was tempted. He is God made into flesh. Just because we don’t proclaim an event doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
 
Tim_D said:
This is an excellent question. I once saw a priest on tv who said that the temptation narrative was an attempt by the writer to show that Jesus was at the same time both God and man. This is the position that I hold. The temptation narrative does not convey (to me, at least) the same genuiness that much of the Gospels convey. I can imagine Jesus at the wedding in Cana…I can see him with Mary and Martha after Lazarus died…I can see him with the many named people of the Gospels but the temptation narrative itself just seems to be out of place, a unique occurrence that upsets the flow of the Gospels.
Click to expand...
Since when does your imagination trump the teaching of the Church Fathers and Catholic scholars?

It sure is silly season for all the Biblical threads these days. 😛
 
RPRPsych said:
Since when does your imagination trump the teaching of the Church Fathers and Catholic scholars?
Click to expand...
Please cite for me Church teaching and “Catholic scholars” who distinguish between the literal and figurative in every instance of scripture.
RPRPsych said:
It sure is silly season for all the Biblical threads these days. 😛
Click to expand...
“Silly” being the operative word on this thread.
 
The temptation is naturally real, and biblically able based on Trinitarian interpretation.
 
Tim_D said:
Please cite for me Church teaching and “Catholic scholars” who distinguish between the literal and figurative in every instance of scripture.

“Silly” being the operative word on this thread.
Click to expand...
The temptation is clearly literal.
 
Tim_D said:
I deny no such thing.

And it further shows that you don’t even have a accurate idea of the term “modernism.”
Click to expand...
I’ll rephrase.

You deny the historicity of certain events recorded in Divine Revelation.
 
Tim_D said:
Please show me how you know this to be so.

Also, please show me every instance in the Gospels that is and isn’t “clearly literal.”
Click to expand...
Oh my gosh! Do I have to quote every instance in the Synoptics? Do you even believe Jesus was tempted?
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
I’ll rephrase.

You deny the historicity of certain events recorded in Divine Revelation.
Click to expand...
Guilty as charged.

If you dig deep enough, you will find that even the Church teaches that scripture is not a documentation of vulgar history but a carefully constructed attempt to explain the mystery of salvation between God and man. To maintain that each and everything in scripture is historically “true” is to miss the point of the various authors. It would not matter one iota if the Gospels were never written; the Christian faith and the Church would still exist. To quibble over the temptation narrative or whether Jesus was actually on a mountain speaking the beatitudes is a distraction from the real meaning and message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top