|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Temptation #3==
| |
| − | In one sense I wonder if Satan did have power to give the world to Christ--since what defines the world (and worldliness) is that it follows Satan. He is the God of this world. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:11, 29 Jan 2007 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| − | Matthew, good point. However, I wonder about the temptations even being temptations. Each one strikes me as beneath Jesus. Maybe this IS the point, that all temptation is below each one of us and to succumb is stupid or, at least, counterproductive and unneccessary when in the grand scheme of things all that the Father has is promised us if we will simply obey. I also wonder about WHO wrote this event down and how they acquired the knowledge. Clearly Christ had to tell it to someone, unless it was fabricated. Believing Christ shared his experience with his apostles, I think he did so within a framework that would benefit the listener = me. It was probably a very personal experience and one that we might not even comprehend, akin to the Atonement. So, in order to make his point, Christ styalized his experience in a way that would give us access to the "take home message." I also believe he was "tempted" in this manner and at this time to "fulfill all righteousness" similar to his being baptized. It was clearly the order of earthly progression and Christ followed it. Note that in Luke, Satan departs from Jesus for a season implying that Jesus was plagued by Satan later. I wonder how often Satan buffetted the Savior, certainy during his moments of Atonement and sufferring. I believe that Satan probably never left the Savior alone but was constantly at him. So, this temptation on the mount was representative. Nanette
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Nanette, a consequence of your take here: if Jesus "stylized his experience in a way that would give us access to the 'take home message,'" then we still have to ask the question you are trying to avoid, don't we? Namely, what does it mean for Jesus to have been tempted three times by the devil? I think you are trying to split Jesus in two here: on the one hand, He would rework the story to suggest to us that He was temptable; on the other hand, He really wasn't. But if He wants us to think of Him as temptable, shouldn't we think of Him that way?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :But maybe your point is to say that He was temptable, but that these little temptations are microscopic, things that never would have bothered Him. And so He gave us this story (through whatever source wrote it down) so that we could think ourselves in Christ's place in the wilderness. But that seems to me to suggest that Christ assumes we would read the text that way, that we would read ourselves into Christ's place. And I don't think we often do that, if at all. If the point of Matthew's gospel is to present the majesty of the Savior, wouldn't it have been better to report the really difficult temptations instead of these little ones?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :What I suppose I'm getting at in the end, then, is this: isn't our task to think seriously about what it means for Christ to have been tempted on that occasion? What textual clues are there to help us interpret the story? What does this temptation amount to for Matthew (or for whomever wrote it down in the first place)? --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 19:28, 8 February 2007 (CET)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Jesus had just spent 40 days in the wilderness with God. Don't you think that during that time, He was taught who He was and His mission? Wouldn't He have known that He was the Creator? If so, then I believe He was not really tempted with the appetites of the flesh, the things of the world and the dramatic save by leaping off the temple. He said that the "temptor" came and said unto Him...Christ's response was that He was not to tempt the Lord. He knew who He was.--Janet Lisonbee 11/3/08
| |
