Talk:Temptation of Christ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction. To say that Jesus was tempted by Satan DURING his 40-day fast is to follow the summary account in the Gospel in Mark, but ignores Matthew 4:2, 'And when he had fasted for forty days and forty nights, he afterwards began to be hungry', and Luke 4:2, 'When the days were completed, he began to be hungry.' In other words, through (clearly) the power of the Spirit in him (he was 'full of the Holy Spirit', Lk 4:1), he did not feel hungry UNTIL, 'when he wished it, he granted the nature the opportunity to perform its own operation' (Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus). Richard Meredith, 16.2.2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Meredith (talkcontribs) 14:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity / Jesus (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group.

jesuby bread alone- has today become a common expression, which some take to refer to a need for spirituality, but most use in the opposite sense, to justify material luxuries."

Is there any references for the suggestion that "most" people use the quote to justify material luxuries? It sounds like an opinion/comment rather than fact.

The messages about the masonic view of satan have been removed. Freemasonry, on the blue lodge level, does not discuss ideas such as satan, because they are steeped within the context of certain faith. Granted Freemasonry uses the theme of King Solomon's temple, and stone building, it doesn't have a theological view point on things such as satan.

Not supernatural powers[edit]

During this time, the devil appeared to Jesus and tempted him to demonstrate his supernatural powers as proof of his divinity

This statement isn't referenced, and it isn't supported by the rest of the article. Jesus' "supernatural powers" are not being tested. Yes, he can turn rocks into bread, but if he falls, he needs angels to save him. The part about worshiping the devil and ruling the world, that's just a moral test. Jonathan Tweet 06:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, its too simple to call it a test of his supernatural powers, additionally it implies that he gains these powers after baptism, when he clearly had 'powers' or whatever is the proper thing to call it (Divinity?) before this. (water to wine and such.) Also how is the 'Christian' interpretation 'more correct' because it uses 'deceiver' , to me this doesn't hinder the Jewish tradition that the devil is a being created by god to test man at all and relies on a Christian pre-bias to have it make 'logical sense' witch is the implication. I think both elements need to be changed. (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The bit about demonstrating his supernatural powers possibly comes from the book Poverty of Spirit by Johannes-Baptist Metz SJ who developed this interpretation. His idea was that the temptations were to call upon powers or aids that human beings can't, and his resistance was in the fact that he limited himself to strictly human powers. I don't understand why there is so much concern about Christian pre-bias and Jewish traditions and (in the article) 'non-Christian teachings' (which is an enticingly useless statement without any reference or further information). This is an article about a passage in the Gospels, not about religious notions about 'diabolos' or 'satan'. In fact I think most of the last paragraph in 'Accounts', starting with 'The Catholic and Orthodox teaching is that the Devil and the other demons are spiritual or angelic creatures' is irrelevant to this article. Put a link to the relevant articles, if you want, where 'Satan' or 'Devil' occur. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But, it is all about supernatural powers, except last one. Devil say if you are truly son of god, make this rock in bread....and feed whole world. Then he say, if you are son of god, then you can throw from temple or mountain ...and nothing will happen to you.

It seem to me that those will be first questions which every man who think that he is son of good will ask himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

John's Gospel[edit]

The Gospel of John states that on the 3rd day after his baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. (John 1:29, 35, 43; 2:1) This conflict does not seem to be mentioned in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Find a RS that talks about the apparent indiscrepency, then add it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


There seems to be a number of spacing/formatting problems beings caused by the images on the page. I've re-arranged them as best I could to eliminate the spacing issues, but it's still not great. The problem seems to be a result of the small sections and the bullet points in almost every section (which don't work well with left-aligned images). We can clean this up in a couple different ways. The easiest way would be to remove one or more of the images. While they all directly apply to the topic, not every image depicting the temptation of Christ needs to be included in the article. I propose removing either Duccio's The Temptation on the Mount, or Ary Scheffer's The Temptation of Christ. They are different in style but both are nearly the same in what they depict.

Other options would be to expand each section so that the images fit on the page better or try to re-write some of the bullet lists into paragraph form. Obviously expanding the entire article would be the ideal solution but I don't believe I'm familiar enough with the event to do this myself. In any case, I'll wait to hear some other opinions before removing one or more of the images. Skiguy330 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Referencing the Bible[edit]

Considering the topic, there is no reliable source greater than the Bible. This subject, along with many others, would not be in Wikipedia if the Bible did not exist. If the Bible is a myth, then the articles should be fiction, and the Bible would still be the reliable source. If the Bible is truth, the Bible is still, obviously, the reliable source.

Regarding recent addition by Brunomayala, removed by History2007: I would clean up the contributions, but not remove them altogether. Words like "perhaps" should be removed, but references to scriptural definition/example of fasting and the Greek lexicon are hardly original research. Totoro33 (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In time someone will come around and add a primary sources flag to that page. Please do a comprehensive search and get other sources. Using the Bible itself is asking for flags. History2007 (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This, of course, highlights a fundamental conflict between the religion of the (so-called) secular, versus the religion of those who believe in Almighty God. It is foolish that heathen historians would even comment on the truths of God -- to search for secondary sources because scripture is not trusted is an implicit confession that said researcher is a-theistic; i.e., they have faith in the non-neutral dogma, "God does not exist." More specifically, if God indeed exists and scripture is truth, then things would be very different regarding the study of this bit of history... by behaving otherwise, the researcher's apparent religion is a-theism, and all of their activity is founded upon a religious idea that God does not exist, which (any reasonably intelligent heathen can admit) is an unproven assertion. Totoro33 (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I am speechless! History2007 (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with History2007 on this. The Bible is a primary source and basically anyone can argue anything using it. Secondary sources are needed to back up texts like what Bruno wrote. What he did was a novel synthesis based on a concordance. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Carl, I agree. And Bruno wrote well, he just needs to find sources for it. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, honestly it was so well written that I waited for someone else to remove it. Thanks for doing the dirty work :P carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
@Carl: This article is about Christ and Satan, both of whose very existence is disputed by secular historians, much less some story about them interacting. The topic of their existence is covered in other articles. If Christ and Satan do not exist, then the Temptation of Christ is an invalid subject in its entirety, and the Bible is the only source of the "fiction." If they do exist, then scripture is obviously the authoritative source. Your inadequacy to contribute to this topic is showing. I am certain that you have other areas of expertise. Your conversation on Christian topics is embarrassing. Totoro33 (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The Bible is a primary source, and too subject to interpretation to source for Wikipedia anything but its narrative. It cannot be made to support the text Bruno wrote. Perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with some of our policies: Novel synthesis and reliable sources. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, based on a long edit history, Carl is pretty knowldgable in this topic, in my opinion. But then, what do I know, you might say. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


"The story of the Temptation is one of the notable omissions in the Gospel of John."

Just because it does not occur in the Gospel of John does not mean that it was necessarily omitted; the same goes for whatever else is found in the Synoptics but not in John. It has nothing to do with omission. This is an argument constantly used to infer that John's Gospel is the only account in which Jesus is portrayed as divine. There appears to be a neutrality breach in the phrasing of this statement, which should read something like, "Notably, this story is not found in the Gospel of John." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


In keeping with the non-literal idea of a devil, it it possible that the "Devil", as mentioned in the Bible passage, was the Pharisees? After all, the devil is fond of quoting prior scripture, so Jesus responds with contradictory ideas. This thought just came to me the other day, and I was wondering if any Biblical scholar came to the same conclusion? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not the general scholarly view. History2007 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
C'mon, there hasn't been at least one? Or is my understanding of it completely original? The Temptation of Jesus is my favorite passage in the bible because of the layers upon layers of symbolic meaning embedded within it. Perhaps I've just uncovered something new? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is not an online tutorial. Even if there is one, it would be a minority WP:Fringe opinion. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That's moving in the direction of Antisemitism in the New Testament. (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That is a separate issue, in this case the conflicts with the Pharisees have not heated up yet in the narrative. And the existence of Satan regardless of the critical humans is well established elsewhere. This is a separate issue really, and the Pharisees have no role in this episode in most interpretations. There is probably a webpage somewhere that says Satan here represents ABC (pick your least favorite ABC) for any ABC... History2007 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Further Temptation[edit]

" i.e. that the devil would later return to further tempt Jesus (which Luke spells out explicitly)." Where in Lukeis this spelled out explicitly? (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)