Christianity and Satan

The topic of this thread has twisted and turned – which I think is the hallmark of any interesting conversation.Mona and Coel – you have made some great rational answers to some of my questions. I know, at times, I fail to see the forest through the trees. In either case, this has motivated me to increase my scholarship on this subject, and what a great subject to study!

I am not atheist, and I do believe God has handed down to man certain truths that he wishes us to know. Mona’s explanation on Jesus was not novel to me (quotes of Psalm 22). You mention the duality that seems to exist in Mark, but referring to God as ‘my father’ is not a claim of deity, but a common term used for God from Jews at this time. Even when Jesus teaches us to pray, he is not saying “my father or Jesus’ father who art in heaven” but “our father who art in heaven”. In church, when we pray this are we claiming to be God with “My heavenly father”? The Catholic church also has made similar statements of salvation not being possible without them, but this was never a claim of being God. To quote the Psalm is to establish the great pain that Jesus was going through – no doubt. Forgive me, but to have God leave Jesus is irrational. It is an expression of faith to accept that Jesus can be God at one moment and not be God at another. It takes faith to believe that something can both be and not be at the same time. I don’t believe there is a rational explanation other than to say Jesus was not God. Since we are made with rational minds in God’s image, I trust the rational nature I was given. I am open to the probability that the understanding of this has alluded me while others can understand it rationally.

One problem is, the bible did not explain why Jesus said this. It has been Christian scholars who have. If the Bible said, "because God was holy and Jesus took on the sin of the world", then I can concede the point.

It may be beyond a message board to clarify a problem that has split churches (like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons) from the unity/trinity belief of Catholics and Protestants. Why does Jesus obfuscate his nature? Why does it seem most Christians ignore the 100s of times where Jesus seems to imply he is not God to look at a few instances where he ‘might’ have said he was. Honestly, I don’t care what ‘truth’ is, I just want it – and to be wrong is just an expression of growth, so let me be wrong.

I AM verse. John 8:58. John of course varies greatly from the synoptic gospels which were written earlier. John is the main(only) of the 4 gospels to which we draw on Jesus’ claims of divinity. The entire narrative of John 8 is great (just re-read it for this). Jesus is establishing himself as a high authority on morality (and doing a great job of it). The Christian view is during this confrontation, Jesus is quoting Exodus 3:14 to establish himself as God. Of course, the idea of duality, trinity, or changing the nature of God is blasphemy, so Jesus had to hide and sneak out. In reading John 8, one could just as easily walk away (without prejudice and bias) with the idea of Jesus being the son of God (ref. ‘father who sent me’ and ‘my father’ mentioned many times). Many of us have taken entry level literature and understand explicating the meaning of prose is much more important than the literal reading. Literally, Jesus is claiming he was around before Abraham which, at the very least, would make him a special prophet. The literal interpretation does not take into account Jesus’ audience and the poetic genius Jesus often employed.

Modern day Jews do not concede Jesus was the Messiah. One problem, Jews never believed the Messiah to be God, but a king/prophet sent that will need to fulfill certain messianic prophecies. Since Jesus did not cause certain things to happen, he cannot be the Messiah. Christians count on a ‘2nd Coming’ to fulfill the prophecies. The hypocritical problem is if we are the believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah foretold by Isaiah and Ezekiel, we would have to abandon the idea of Jesus being [a] God because that would be blasphemy and sin. Jews do not (did not) believe the Messiah is (will be) God and the idea of that is completely incompatible with their beliefs. Some believe that John specifically has been heavily edited and changed by Greek authors since the structure seems more Greek than the Hebrew style of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. A good modern day equivalent is Joseph Smith. To believe Joseph Smith (and the book of Mormon) was a true prophet of God is to sin against the teachings of the New Testament.

EDIT:

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

This is added to make it on topic... This either indicates Satan didn't know Jesus was God, or Jesus wasn't God. I think it's interesting to ponder why Satan wouldn't be aware of Jesus' divinity.
 
CF, thanks for considering my response to you. And whether or not you are an atheist is not important to me. We are all trying to understand these things from whatever perspective we come.

About Mark 1 and how it describes Jesus' deity, I have to remind you that Jesus didn't say "my father" in that context. God the Father said "my one beloved Son" about Jesus. This is an expression that Jesus' is a son in a way that no one else is. This is why the title Son of God is used of Him in the gospels. Jesus uses it of Himself. Being God's son makes Jesus divine. This relationship can not be logically applied to us because of the phrase "my one beloved Son". Jesus is the only one who can be described in this way. Mankind are sons of God only in the sense that we are dependent on Him for life. Also, look into Coelancanth's explanation in Mark 14. In that passage Jesus quotes OT passages from Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13. Both verses refer to the character and identity of the Messiah. Look at Daniel 7:13. The passage says the "one like a son of man" will be given an everlasting kingdom. It refers to His authority being eternal which is an indication of the king's eternality. Remember Jesus is saying "this is me". Further, looking at Daniel this description in chapter 7 has a parallel in chapter 2 where this everlasting kingdom is described first. It is from Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue. In Daniel's interpretation in chapter 2, the everlasting kingdom is "cut from a mountain without hands" which alludes to its source being from God Himself. Again support for the Godhood of Jesus. All of this is to help explain what the high priest already knew in Mark 14. If you are going to use the 1st century Jew as an arbiter, then let's do it. Here we see the high priest understanding that Jesus claims to be God, otherwise he would not have called it blasphemy. If all Jesus was doing was claiming to be a human messiah there would not have been an issue. So let's learn from him here although 2000 yrs later.

About Jesus' use of Psalm 22 on the cross, how does God forsaking Jesus mean that Jesus is no longer God? I don't think Jesus was stricken from the Godhead. Making that statement is claiming something that is not said. Think of it in relational terms. Jesus' state before the Father was in some way broken temporarily, probably emotionally or intimately. At the same time, Jesus was still God. That is not an illogical or irrational statement. I can be mad at my wife temporarily and during that time there is an emotional distance or a separation of intimacy. Yet, we are still bonded by the covenant of marriage. Our underlying relationship is not changed. Jesus' deity is not challenged by suffering on the cross at the hand of the Father. I agree that our rationality is one way that we are in the image of God. I would never claim otherwise. As humans though we must remember that logic is built on assumptions, and many times humans have wrong assumptions. Not saying you do. Just saying it is a fact of being human.

Where does Jesus imply that He is not God? I have read all through the gospels and have not seen it. Now I have seen where He shows Himself to be a separate person. That is a different thing. God obfuscates many things, it is an unanswerable question at this point in time.

I agree that John 8 should be read for a variety of reasons. I think it is awesome on several levels. Jesus claiming He was around in the time of Abraham means He can not be human. Human existence starts at conception/birth.

As far as modern Jews belief that messiah is not God, I do not know if that is totally true. They did and do expect messiah to rule as king in Israel and bring political power and freedom to the state, something Jesus has not yet done. I believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, but that does not mean that my understanding mirrors theirs exactly. I believe what the Law and the Prophets say about messiah and I also believe what Jesus revealed about messiah. There are hints of the messiahs deity. It is something that the Jews could maybe should have seen coming. There is a section in Isaiah which is full of Messianic language, chapters 7-12. In chapter 9, in a well known passage about the messiah it describes Him as "wonderful counselor, almighty God, everlasting Father, prince of peace". There are several things in that phrase alone which point to the messiah's deity. My picture of messiah is the biblical picture, whatever it says about Him. Deity is part of the picture.

Criticizing John for being too Greek is strange to me. The structure I am sure is more Greek than Hebrew, but how can we really know the cause of that. John is a different person who had a different understanding of the Greek language than the other authors. He might have been a better Greek student? He might have had more experience writing in Greek by the time he gets to writing his gospel? There are many plausible explanations that do not include external editing. The fact is this gospel is a very intimate account of Jesus and in it are many claims to deity by Jesus. Might the intimacy of John to Jesus be part of the reason why many of these types of claims show up here?

I don't think Satan's temptation of Jesus has anything to do with whether or not Satan knew Jesus was God or not. In the gospels demons know the identity of Jesus. Jesus' brother James echos that in his letter. Satan didn't tempt Jesus because he thought Jesus was not God. He tempted Jesus because he knew He was God. To get Jesus to worship him would have defeated God's plan for a perfectly holy savior and I would think had some cosmically serious implications that Satan would probably be okay with.
 
This sounds like a lot of fancy interpretive footwork to fit the popular ideal of who Jesus was (and who he claimed to be),but I very much appreciate your challenges to my beliefs as they give me new things to consider.

This is a vary laborious task, but one I am glad we both (at least to this point) have committed some or our precious time to. We may have to admit to irreconcilable differences.

In response to Paragraph 2“About Mark 1...”

To say Jesus is the son of God and God is irrational. I believe you have convinced me that Jesus is divine (not that it was a sticking point in my mind – he very much has godlike nature, and I have been too loose with my adjectives), but I still cannot see him as God. Daniel chapter 2 – no doubt Jesus is from God himself. Jesus always gave credit to the father (I think). I do not understand how the reading of Daniel 2 assumes Jesus is God. Daniel 7:13, however, is very powerful! Thanks for leading me to that.

In response to Paragraph 3-4 “About Jesus’ use of Psalm 22..”

Again – fancy interpretation. You claim I am interpreting things that aren’t there, and I see you doing that (it’s funny how two people can see the same thing so differently). I am only basing my decision on the passage by what is written in the bible, and I am not trying to be influenced by interpretation or add things to support the Jesus I was told about. The example you gave is not illogical. You and your wife are two separate beings. So if to understand Jesus as a separate physical entity but somehow spiritually linked to God is the point you are making, then, yes, I can see the logic behind your explanation. I think all Christians can feel a spiritual closeness with God at times and feel it leave. Doesn’t your explanation only support the idea of Jesus not being God? You state God left Jesus... That would mean God is not Jesus.

Jesus claims many times to be doing the work of the father (ie the father sent me). If I say to you, “I have come to do work for my boss that sent me”, I would be stating that there is a higher power who is separate from me that is influencing my actions. I don’t know how you can conclude that Jesus was speaking of himself when he speaks of a seemingly separate entity that is “God”. Now, I may be humble and say “The Boss sent me” and actually be the boss, but if I’m doing that, it’s an attempt to manipulate you with a lie as to make you feel more comfortable with me.

In response to “As far as modern Jews..”

They do not believe the Messiah to be God. Check this outThe Link It basically states much of the things in the King James translations as being knowingly changed to support the identity of Christ. I don’t know enough about Hebrew, but I know Jews do not believe the Messiah will be God, but he will be sent by God.

In response to “Criticizing..”

The criticism result from the idea that Rome altered who Jesus claimed to be. Since John is the main book that establishes Jesus’ deity identity, some biblical scholars think it may be a Roman manipulation. I don’t know enough about it to support or deny that claim.

In response to “I don’t think...”

Again – this sounds like you are talking out of two sides of your mouth. To satisfy the text, you admit to Jesus being a separate entity, but to satisfy your belief, you speak of Jesus as God. I know you will disagree. How can I tempt you with something you already have? This is like me saying to Obama “I will give you the US presidency if you fall down and worship me.”

Mona – you are smarter than me (this is not flattery - I believe it - I don't need to pull my punches with you), and I imagine older and more learned. The difference is you accept Jesus as God on faith, but I don’t see it as being a rational decision just by reading the first 3 books of the New Testament at face value (you, no doubt, make the opposite conclusion on the same readings). I see a contradiction (honesly, it floors me to think you don't see it too), and question, not God, but man's motive in causing the contradiction. I believe you want Jesus to be God. I would guess you think I want him not to be. That would take some self evalution on my part, but i don't believe that is my goal. We both are after the same goal: truth. So be it (aka amen).
 
Thanks for the conversation CF. I have enjoyed it. In general, let me tell you that I have come to my conclusions from an honest look at the bible. Of course, I have heard the orthodox views on these issues concurrently with my study. That happens when you are in a church. However, I have come up with many conclusions that are different from the churches I have been a part of. This while still finding the orthodox views to best describe the biblical accounts. Now on to the fun.

-Mark 1-
I don't see how Jesus being the Son of God and God is irrational. I really don't. Please explain. From my perspective, being the Son of God means He is God. I am the son of a man therefore I am a man. This is different than Jesus being a person of the triune God but the analogy holds that to be the son of something means you are the same in essence. It only describes a small part of Jesus identity as God though. The point with Daniel 2 is that the mountain in the dream is God. The stone which is the king who rules the kingdom is Jesus. The stone is of the mountain and it was cut without hands, which indicates the supernatural. Again it is a description that Jesus is of the same essence of the Father which would necessarily mean eternal, holy, loving, powerful, etc. Again it does not give a complete and conclusive description of Jesus as God but it is an important piece of the puzzle.

-Psalm 22-
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I have enjoyed it to... Greatly in fact. I have read most of your posts on other subjects, and I'm always humbled by your ability to state a factual logical case without emotion or malice (I may look new, but I've been on hornfans since Major was our starter). We just look at the bible in a different light.

I say God is infallible, but the men who write of God are very fallible. Some may choose to gloss over mistakes, or try to explain them in some imaginative way, but I think the men who put these mistakes were blinded by God so that we would see them and know only perfection can come from God. Now this begs the question... What mistakes? I’ll reference a book by the biblical scholar I spoke of earlier.

1. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus cleanses the Temple (big T) during the last week of his life, but in John, Jesus does this at the very beginning of his ministry. 2. Mark’s Gospel states Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows twice, but Matthew’s says before the crock crows. 3. The third day when the women go to Jesus’ burial chamber has accounts of two men (Luke), or one angel (Matthew). 3. In John’s Gospel, Jesus performs “the first sign that Jesus did” (John 2:11). Later, Jesus did “many signs” in Jerusalem (John 2:23), then later “this was the second sign Jesus did” (John 4:54). 4. Jesus has his last supper with the disciples from John 13-17. John 13:36 peter says “Lord, where are you going?”. John 14:5 Thomas says “Lord, we do not know where you are going”. Then John 16:5 Jesus says “Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’”.

Like I said, I think John may be a manipulation of Christ by the early Christian church, but even thinking that, I still love the lessons it teaches. Some of the other mistakes are probably just little differences in the way people remember the stories or how they were changed after being passed down before being eventually written down. We are not Muslim (Mormon). We do not believe God wrote the bible (Koran/Book of Mormon), but inspired the bible, so I think/hope a critical examination of the book is indeed heresy, but not a sin.
 
There are some very good arguments from both sides in this thread. I love these discussions, it helps me seek out God even better.There are some arguments asking how those who never heard Jesus preach could reach Heaven, including people like Moses, etc.

Jesus speaks in John 5 (I stumbled on this the other day and helped answer this very question I always had):

(from New Living Translation)

In reply to:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
CF, I finally got a chance to continue. I read through your list of "mistakes". Several of these I have not even seen before, some I have.

1. There are 2 possible explanations to the question of when did Jesus really cleanse the Temple. The first is simply that it is a possibility that there were more than one Temple cleansing. There are issues with any answer, but this remains a possibility. The second explanation comes from understanding the different ways ancient histories were written. Some were edited based on chronology and others thematically. I don't remember names but I remember one of the Roman historians employing this method in a history course on CD I have. He was not the only one to employ it. Now looking at the gospels only one claims to be chronological, Luke, and that leaves the style open for the other 3. I think the source of this issue comes from modern and post-modern minds reading classically written literature. They had a method they used which we don't anymore, or not much at all.

2. The cock crowing account was one I haven't studied before. I can't say I have a definitive answer but some interesting observations do arise which would support the notion that these are not contradictory accounts but complementary. The Mark account says that a rooster will crow twice and does. The Matthew account says that the rooster will crow and does. The point being that neither account makes a mistake per se. Mark focuses on the number of times any rooster will crow, and the statement in Matthew focuses on the rooster which crows after the 3rd denial. Examining both passages it is most likely that there were 2 roosters crowing at different times. A detail we wouldn't know about it not for the variation of account. Maybe not the most important detail to some, but it is still there.

3. I think what is happening here is very similar to the issue in number 2. There accounts differ, and what that produces is a much more complete composite account when you harmonize them together. The men in Luke are certainly angels when looking at the description of their sudden appearance and clothing. Again, there are discrepancies between the two accounts but nothing contradictory.

4. I had not seen the issue in John either, very interesting. What I do notice is that the signs that are described as first and second happen in Cana and the "many signs" happen in Jerusalem. The statement in John 4 has two other possible meanings besides being a mistake. FIrst, it could mean that Jesus did another, undocumented miracle in Cana after He returned from Jerusalem. At the end of John, the author states that there were many more miracles that he did not write down. This could be one of them. The other possibility is that John is stating that this was the 2nd miracle performed by Jesus while he was in Cana, even though the boy was in Capernaum. I think either option is as likely that the author made a mistake.

5. This is another issue I had to look at. On the surface it looks like Jesus makes a misstatement. Thinking about the situation and reading through the passage shows that Jesus is emphasizing the reaction by the apostles. He is not making a statement that the apostles had not asked in the past. In chapter 14 they ask Jesus several times where he is going. Then as Jesus starts to describe what is going to happen to Him and them, their attention moves away from where Jesus is going to what is going to happen to them. Jesus just told them that they are going to be killed and those responsible will think that they have done a service to God by doing so. I know I would quit worrying about Jesus was going at that point. I would want to know how i could get out of being murdered. I think this is a case where the language is more ambiguous than it could be. Jesus could have added the word "anymore" after "not one of you is asking me" and we would not be having this discussion. But I think God does want us to search and ponder and trust to get to the truth. This is one of those cases.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on mine. Talk to you later.
 
Mona, hello my friend. Here are my thoughts on your points.

1. I think the pride in your own conclusions may be effecting your ability to analyze this issue without bias. It seems obvious to me all 4 biblical gospels are told in a linear narrative (birth, ministry has a beginning –middle-end, death). I agree it could be possible, but I think it not very probable. If I say “Vince Young beat USC, winning the Rose Bowl his first year at Texas”, I am at odds with “Vince Young beat USC, winning the Rose Bowl his last year at Texas”. Unfortunately, my knowledge of ancient Jewish literary styles is zero, so I must concede.

2. Yes. I agree with you. I hadn’t looked at it this way, and I can think of multiple examples to support your idea. I could say, Texas lost to Tech because of Gideon missing an interception. You then, separately, could say, Texas lost to Tech because Gideon missed a Crabtree tackle late in the game (I hope my facts are correct). Both tellings are true based on the observer and are not contradictory (this could explain some of your other points too).

3. I don’t think both can be correct. One version is correct, one version isn’t. You seem to concede that one may have made the wrong observation, and I would agree. The biblical authors were limited by their own human observation and their own imperfection.

4. I can’t argue against your imagination, nor can I prove it wrong. If we base our discussion on just what is written, we must conclude there is a mistake. If we base our discussion on what we can think up, then we can explain anything into a version of reality.

5. Again, I think bias is causing you to expand information from the text. It is a very interesting problem. It begs us to learn Greek so we can look at the original versions to see if our English translation is missing anything. But, perhaps this is to teach us something. You have made an insight that has spurred me on a different way of thinking about it. Jesus, perhaps, was illustrating our human selfishness.
 
Thanks for your thoughts. Discussions like this always help understand things better.

1. Good point about the gospels being basically told linearly. That is true. However, there are events that are not so obvious where they are to go in time. Birth and death are kind of obvious. Passovers happen at only a certain time of the year. Specific sermons and the contents of those sermons not so much. Accounts of healings can not be easily placed into a narrative. That is why in some of the gospels you see strings of similar events at times. Parable about the kingdom in one place. Descriptions of healings/exorcisms collected in another. That is more what I was talking about. Then look at Luke. He states that he made every effort to put things in chronological order. In Luke, you find events which are grouped together in Mark and Matthew placed at different times. The thematic formatting vs. strict chronological is a very reasonable answer. This is not something I have made up myself. I have read certain scholars describe this and noticed similar things in courses about ancient history. Now I agree if there is a specific time statement like, Jesus cleansed the temple at the end of his ministry vs. Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of his ministry, that would denote a mistake. Looking at John's account, there are several timing phrases which place the event more securely in the narrative. Matthew and Mark do not do this. The event just kind of appears with no lead in or transition. Some translations use the "then" which would imply an orderly account but the word translated there means and/also. So there is no time implication at all. In Mark the chronological order looks even more suspect because the temple event is put right in the middle of the story of the cursed/withered fig tree. Matthew puts the temple event before the fig event. However, looking at the chapters in which the temple event is placed there are two related themes which the cleansing of the temple is in line with. The first is Jesus' authority. The fig event shows His authority over nature. The temple story shows his authority over spiritual life/religion. This also occurs right after the triumphal entry where Jesus enters Jerusalem as king. He is hailed as king by the crowds. Again a proving of His authority would thematically follow from him being king. Then in Matthew, Jesus says two parables again showing His authority as a teacher and both declaring the disobedient nature of the current religious authorities. So there is definitely a theme being developed through both of those chapters. A theme of power is being shown in John too where the other two parts of the chapter describe miraculous signs.

Of course that may not be the answer at all. There is evidence that supports the view though and not meager evidence I think.

I think just as probable though is that there could have been multiple temple cleansings. None of the statements in Matthew, Mark, and John contradicts there being separate events.

3. I think my point was the point I made for issue 2, which you recognized. You said "Both tellings are true based on the observer and are not contradictory". That would be a great summary of what I believe here too. The Matthew account focuses in on the 1 angel which also rolled the stone away from the tomb. Whereas, Luke leaves out that detail but shows that there were 2 angels that spoke to the women. Matthew's language never requires that there is only one angel, the other angel that appears and speaks to the women just is not mentioned. That's how I see it anyway.

4. It seems you least agree with me on this issue. I did go and look into the statement in Greek in John 4:54 to see if it provided any more insight. My word-for-word is something like, this again is a second sign Jesus did after coming out of Jerusalem and into Galilee. My first conclusion is it is ambiguous, not an absolute statement about this being the 2nd overall miracle in Jesus' ministry. The phrase "after coming out" is an aorist participle describing the verb "did" which indicates when and where the sign occurred. The participle could also be translated "since coming out". I really think it is not conclusive for either argument. To say we must conclude it is a mistake based on what is written, I just don't understand. John is indicating much more information there besides this is Jesus' 2nd miracle. The "again" has some sort of significance too. What is unclear, but it could simply be showing that Jesus again did a sign in Cana. Any answer will employ some level of imagination because John is not precise in his language.

5. I do not believe I am expanding information. I am using the what the text says. My point is that Jesus clarified why the disciples now are not asking for where He is going in verse 6. My observations of what is there is that they were asking. Then in chapter 16 Jesus makes a statement that they are not asking because they are more concerned about Jesus prediction about them being killed. Jesus gives the explanation of what's going on, not me.

Thanks for making me look further into these questions. I have learned a lot. I hope it continues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top