"Is Peter speaking of a water baptism here? I don't think so. Water baptism doesn't take away sins. I think he is using the term figuratively. What does it mean to be baptized in the name of Jesus?"

That sounds like a kind of special pleading to me. Three verses later it says

How could this not be water baptism?

What would it mean if, in fact, Peter really does mean "be baptized (with water)...for (i.e., "into/unto") the remission of sins" here, or if Acts 22:16 really is talking about having one's sins washed away through baptism, or if 1 Peter 3:18-22 really is saying that "baptism...now saves you"? From my own experience, I can say that the more carefully I considered these and other related verses the more convincing a "sacramental" interpretation of them became and the less convincing the Baptist-type interpretations became.

But, to say that Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:18-22, etc. are not referring to the water baptism that we all receive sure sounds like special pleading (that is, an attempt to avoid the sacramental implications of these verses). But, if you've blogged before about your interpretation or wish now to explain your view further, I'd certainly be glad to read what you have to say.

Zach, I found another defender of the unknown apostle. (lol!)

"After the Ascension of Our Lord, His followers at Jerusalem chose a replacement for Judas. The man chosen was Matthias, "and he was numbered with the Eleven." Apart from the information given in the first chapter of Acts, nothing is known of him. It would be a mistake to conclude from this that he was a failure and a bad choice as an apostle. We know as much as we do about Peter and Paul because Luke (a travelling companion of Paul) wrote extensively about them. About most of the other apostles (those belonging to the original twelve and later ones like Matthias) we know little after Pentecost on an individual basis." http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/109.html

Zach, since I have opportunity, I'll respond now point-by-point. 

Regarding Acts 2:38: I didn't leave out that we are to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" or that with baptism we receive the Holy Spirit; I talked about these things in the same post, but at some point after my initial comment about the verse. I believe that to be baptized "in" or "into" or "upon" the "name of Jesus Christ" is to be water baptized with the triune name of God being spoken over the person and the water, and that this is what Jesus is referring to in Matthew 28:18-20 when He says "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." I believe that the Holy Spirit is "with" the water in a manner described not only in Acts 2:38 but also alluded to in John 3:3-5 ("born of water and the Spirit"). I will add here that the relationship of the gift of the Spirit to the baptismal water is a little complicated in the Book of Acts: in Acts 8:4-25 many believed and were baptized, yet it was a little later (with the laying on of the apostle's hands) that they received the Spirit; in Acts 10:44-48 the listeners received the Spirit, and when Peter saw this he then had them baptized; in Acts 19:1-7 the disciples who had only been baptized with John's baptism were baptized in Jesus' name and then received the Spirit with the laying on of Paul's hands. But, in all of these cases the Spirit and the water "go together." 

Regarding Acts 22:16, you said "I would say again that the water is not efficacious but the calling on the name of Jesus is." But, earlier you said "I don't believe there is anything we can do to receive grace." These two statements, taken together, do not seem to compute. How is it that there is nothing that we can do to receive grace, yet our calling on the name of Jesus is "efficacious"?

Regarding 1 Peter 3:18-22,  the verses include "...when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you..." The word "corresponds" is sometimes translated "antitype"---a near transliteration of the Greek word "antitupos". The idea in these verses, I believe, is that there is a "type"/"antitype" connection between the Great Flood and baptism. But, your reading seems confused, because you seem to be trying to say that "baptism" in v. 21 both "is" Jesus' death (when you quoted v. 18) as well as "corresponds" to Jesus' death.

Then, you say "You mention that we have one baptism. I ask you what is that baptism? Is it the baptism of John with water or is it the baptism of Jesus by the Spirit? As I said earlier, I do believe in baptismal regeneration, but not that of the water. I believe in the efficacious baptism that Jesus underwent for me in the cross, thereby washing away my sins "once for all", and in that baptism He has given me His spirit, because if I have died in Him, it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me." I'm not sure what you're saying when you say "baptism of Jesus by the Spirit." On the one hand, you seem to be saying that baptism is Jesus' death on the cross. Yet, on the other hand, you seem to be saying that baptism is being given the Spirit at conversion (something that has taken place nearly 2000 years after Jesus' death on the cross). Your later statement about the Philippian jailer---"As for the Phillipian jailer, I honestly had forgotten about him :-) However it does not say that he was baptised in water, although it does not say he wasn't either."---continues to leave me wondering what you think "baptism" is in various verses.

How about this: why don't you tell me what "baptism"/"baptized"/"baptizing" refers to in Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12-17, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 16:29-34, Acts 19:1-7, Romans 6:1-4? You don't need to argue for your positions, necessarily---for each of these passages, you could just tell me whether you think a given instance of one of these words is referring to Jesus' death, water baptism, Spirit baptism or perhaps something else. For instance, what do you think it means when it says that the Philippian jailer was "baptized"? This may help me to understand your views better.

We treat of the forgiveness of sins in two ways. First, how it is achieved and won. Second, how it is distributed and given to us. Christ has achieved it on the cross, it is true. But he has not distributed or given it on the cross. He has not won it in the supper or sacrament. There he has distributed and given it through the Word, as also in the gospel, where it is preached. He has won it once for all on the cross. But the distribution takes place continuously, before and after, from the beginning to the end of the world. For inasmuch as he had determined once to achieve it, it made no difference to him whether he distributed it before or after….

[So] if now I seek the forgiveness of sins, I do not run to the cross, for I will not find it given there. Nor must I hold to the suffering of Christ, as Dr. Karlstadt trifles, in knowledge or remembrance, for I will not find it there either. But I will find in the sacrament or gospel the word which distributes, presents, offers, and gives to me that forgiveness which was won on the cross.

(LW 40.213-214), quoted here

In summary, Jesus "won" forgiveness once for all, and this is "distributed" through the preaching of the Gospel and the sacraments (including baptism).

Finally, I'll include this link to Luther's Large Catechism's discussion of baptism, which is part of the official Lutheran confessions. It's a great treatment of the topic, and it is well worth considering by all Christians (I have alluded to a few of its points in my posts here).

John 4:2 could mean that Jesus never baptized anyone, as Zach said, although perhaps it could simply mean that people other than Jesus were the ones who did the baptizing as Jesus and His first disciples made yet more disciples. In other words, I'm not sure that the grammar absolutely rules out Jesus Himself baptizing some group of disciples (e.g., the original 12) very early on and then those disciples baptizing the rest. But, it is true that there is no explicit record of Jesus baptizing anyone in particular, and He may never have baptized anyone.

Are we just batting around questions of fact, or is this part of our discussion inching towards a particular theological point?

Sure, Norm. Peter, who was one of the closest to Jesus, said

Alternatively, we could consider Jesus' own words:

But, I'm not sure what the lack of an explicit record of when certain disciples might have baptized could possibly show. What do you think?

I wasn't looking for specific disciples.  I was looking for record of even one.  I don't know that it proves anything at all.  I was just working on working out whether it was symbolic or just based on tradition (the thought of Peter and unclean food).  The other thought that my brain fights with is whether John was baptizing in Jesus's name (it's one of those moments my linear brain has troubles with)

Understand this is not to win an argument with anyone.  This is just something I've been thinking about recently.  Not looking to step on anyones toes. ;)

I've reread this (commenting after waking up probably wasn't the best way to go).

Much of the discussion that was going through my head was answered in those comments.  Tradition would equate to whether this was a Jewish thing or a Lutheran thing.  I use Lutheran since in another post I was commenting on infant baptism (and well I grew up in a Lutheran church so that's what I'm familiar with).

And symbolic, I was referring to whether it was representative only.  The public show of surrender. 

I was referring to John the Baptist btw. 

I have more I want to add, but now isn't the best time (as I'm ignoring the family to type this and that probably isn't the best idea). 

I don't have enough time to respond point-for-point as I would like, but I just wanted to mention that I find it a stretch to find water baptism mentioned in John 3:5, "born of water and the Spirit."  The explanation of verse 5 is in verse 6, as they parallel each other: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."  "Born of water" is synonymous with being born "to flesh."  It refers to the natural, physical birth.  (Maybe this is because the body is mostly water or because water is so critical to the sustenance of natural life?)  While the Spirit literally "gives birth to spirit" and the flesh literally "gives birth to flesh," plain ol' water never "gives birth to water."  A given amount of water never reproduces more water, nor does one become more water-y when one is baptized. 
Yeah, I ramble.  I just mean to say that I don't get that interpretation, though I know of at least one denomination that holds to it. 

Alright this may be a bit of rambling, but here I go anyways.

This is truly the thing I've been beating my head on the last month or so.  But I want to be clear up front.  I heard someone say that there is a new movement where the questions are more important than the answer.  I don't believe that.  So I apologize in advance for the unanswered questions I'm about to ask.

I knew there was something I was forgetting with "born of water", so I really appreciate Dave's comments.  I knew there was something describing our first birth and the contrasting to the second.  My brain needed the nudge (and actually what you said was more than a nudge ;) )

I've also heard it said that anything that adds to what we have to do to be saved through Christ is the first step towards a cult.  Christ should be enough.

So what about baptism both through water and the Spirit and where does it fit in with Christ dying on the cross.

As mentioned over here I found myself stubbing my toe on the order of what happened in Acts  2 earlier this month.  I mean it seems as though they were filled with the Spirit first and then they believed in Jesus.  Honestly I had never even separated the two things before.  And then to boot (and this could really be read either way) there were those who were filled with the Spirit who didn't believe.  That shouldn't surprise me, however just given the atmosphere, you would think it would be hard to dismiss.  And to boot it said they were religious folk to begin with (again assuming but you would think they were Jews) which would mean they should have understood even better. 

So when I asked about Jesus's followers I was asking trying to follow the order here.  It seems the Spirit made it's first appearance to the disciples when it showed up in Chapter 2 as well.

John also seemed to be baptizing not IN Jesus, but for repentence of sins.  Hence the question about symbolic.

There are also numerous places in the Gospels where people just believed and Jesus didn't tell them to go off and get baptized.  Now again the non existance of it doesn't prove anything, but on the other hand if there was something other than symbolism you would think he would mention it to a new believer wouldn't he?   Now I will admit that I believe God numbers the days of our lives and so it may have been in the plans for all of those to be baptized.

Which brings us to the thief on the cross.  There does not appear to be any evidence that he was filled with the Spirit OR baptized.  The only thing that happened was that he believed in Jesus.  Given the short time he had left maybe he didn't need the Helper? 

So now I'm left with the Spirit and baptism of water.  Neither of which seem to be necessary for salvation, but both of which I seem to want.  And definitely neither of which I want to dismiss outright.

I believe that Dave and Norm have got the parallelism incorrect. Verse 3 says "unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God," and verse 5 says "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." "See the kingdom" parallels "enter the kingdom," and "born anew" (sometimes translated "born again" or "born from above") parallels "born of water and the Spirit."

Furthermore, the Greek underlying the phrase "born of water and the Spirit" is "gennethei ex hudatos kai pneumatos." "Gennethei"="generated," "ex"="out of," "hudatos"="water," "kai"="and" and "pneumatos"="spirit;" the two nouns ("water" and "Spirit") are associated with the one preposition ("out of"). This naturally leads to the reading that these two elements are components of one birth (i.e., the new birth).

If verse 5 had said something like "born out of water and out of the Spirit" (i.e., had two prepositions), then a parallel with v. 6 ("That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit") would be much more tenable. But, it does not. So, based upon both the grammar of v. 5 as well as its parallelism with v. 3, I conclude that being "born again/born from above" means being "born of water and the Spirit."

I came to this conclusion a few years ago. So, I was heartened a couple of years later to read D.A. Carson's book "Exegetical Fallacies," which includes a discussion of this very verse as an illustration of one of his own previous exegetical fallacies. Carson says that early on he rejected a sacramental view of this verse (as far as I know he still does), a symbolic view of "water" (e.g., "water"=the Word of God) and the view that "water" is the amniotic fluid present in fleshly birth. "With some reluctance," he says, he came to the view that "water" is a euphemism for "semen" and that being "born of water" refers to being "begotten of water [=semen]." He then goes on to say that he later had a graduate student who convinced him otherwise: he came around to the view that "born of water and the Spirit" refers to one birth (he notes the single preposition), that this parallels v. 3, etc. Carson further notes the background passage Ezekiel 36:25-27, which links together water and the Spirit in God's saving actions, as something that Nicodemus should have understood.

Now, it is true that this verse does not explicitly mention baptism. However, baptism is not foreign to the context of the particular conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, nor is it foreign to the rest of the book of John. John the Baptist's baptismal ministry had already been discussed in chapter 1, and immediately after the account of Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus it says

Zak,

Yes and no (and sorry for the delay in getting back to this.  It's been a busy week)

Whenever I have read Acts 2 before I have always pictured it this way.

The disciples and other followers are sitting in the upper room.  The Holy Spirit comes in with a whoosh.  However the Holy Spirit doesn't stop there.  It rushes out into the courtyard and fills the 3000 (or so) Jews as well who are all now able to talk to each other in their own language.

As I saw that's how I have always read it in the past.  That's why I said what I did about the Holy Spirit entering and then they became believers.  That said things change.  Usually it's the individual.  I went back and reread that last weekend (after making the comment above) and realized when I tried putting the sequence in order I was off.  It doesn't say that the Jews were talking to each other.  It says they were listening to the followers.  And then 3000 or so became believers.

I'm always floored by those moments when things are "revealed" and perceptions change.  So yes I can explain what I was thinking.  However I think now that I was wrong so we're not going too far down that path. 

JAM, I read 3:3 - 3:6 and still hold to what I said.  If 3:6 had said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the water and the spirit is spirit" I think the argument would hold merit.  However sandwiched on both sides of the verse which you take to mean one thing are statements that compare and contrast two things.  I also think that the "out of" argument would make more sense if applied towards the "one" rather than "one birth".  Visual aid:  This candy is made out of peanut butter and chocolate.

Here's a question that came up this week, that I had been thinking of and as I look back over this conversation I don't see answered.  As far as I know the Jews didn't have baptism as a traditoin, right?  So how did John convince all of these people that they needed to get baptized?  I don't know if that question makes sense.  If it doesn't, let me know.

Yes I believe that Jesus was tempted because I do believe He was fully man at that point.  I mean if he wasn't, could He have died and been resurrected?

The trinity is one of those fun things to figure out.  If He had the Father's knowledge isn't this Jesus lying?

As for the same will, if they were one and the same at that point, Why did He say Father, Father, why have YOU forsaken me?  What was this demonstrating?  Or if they all are embodied in one thing, why did Jesus have to leave so the Helper could come?

I think there are distinct roles in the Trinity.  There appears to be distinct knowledge (which really messes with your head if you're like me and believe God knows everything.  Figure out how that works.  Actually I think the Father does know all for the record) 

I do believe a lot of what He does is for demonstration's sake though.

Back to the baptism stuff for a moment.   Since I haven't said it here but only elsewhere, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be baptized.  I'm only saying that it does not appear necessary.  And disagreeing on what certain things appear to say (imo).

Well that's interesting

whereas the version I quoted distinctly had

Let's grab a couple of other versions, shall we?

The "nor the Son" is important here especially in light of the argument you are trying to make JJ.  If "nor the son" is accurate, it's hard to say that He wasn't speaking as one revealed or that it mattered if He was speaking as one revealed.  Of course as noted on the footnotes on Bible Gateway is the fact that it doesn't show in some texts.

I'll have to answer the rest of the stuff later as I need to head out the door.

Ok this time I know the star worked!  Apparently if you check the box in the "Add a star" box it doesn't work.... But if you click it at the top of the blog it does....

I did some limited research in the Greek interlinear bible and one of the three texts does have the word "heewos" (phonetic spelling) which does mean "Son of Man" in Matt 24:36.  The first of the three following Greek texts Nestlé-Aland 26 Greek Text, 1894 Textus Receptus, 1991 Byzantine Greek Text is the one that contains that word.  The word does not appear in the other two.

So there appears to be some controversy by the translators and the original texts over what was actually intended to be said.  Either way to me it really doesn't make much of a difference because as I see it the term "Son" or "Son of Man" is generally used to refer to Jesus as he was on earth, not his Spiritual nature as the one true God. According to http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=5207 The word heewos is defined as a term that was used by Christ himself, doubtless in order that he might intimate his Messiahship and also that he might designate himself as the head of the human family, the man, the one who both furnished the pattern of the perfect man and acted on behalf of all mankind. Christ seems to have preferred this to the other Messianic titles, because by its lowliness it was least suited to foster the expectation of an earthly Messiah in royal splendour.

So as you can see at the time it was a term that was not equivalent to "God the Father", which we now know he is one with and can use the terms interchangeably.  At the time they did not fully realize this yet, so if the term "Son of Man" or "Son" was used it was likely used intentionally to convey that "he" Christ in the flesh could not tell them.  Again caused by the duality of his position and exactly what had been revealed to them at that point in time, not because he/God didn't actually know...
To me if we accept that Jesus was there at creation and we ascribe deity to him, then he cannot be bound by knowledge, because he is all knowing, and he also cannot be bound by time because he is ever present.  So in a technical since he has to know what is going to happen because he already saw it when he worked out the original plan for the earth. 
But I am not trying to convince anyone differently, I am just throwing out my opinion and how I read it personally. I usually have a different take than others do...
Cheers and God Bless

JJ,

If He said in any form I don't know that information, and He knew that information, it is/was a lie.  There's no working around that.   

Here's another question:

If everything that is God's is the Son's explain this verse:

Before saying that He is claiming it that way only because He hadn't revealed Himself yet, you may want to read the previous verses.

The Trinity is a mindwarping thing that just is not easily understood.  Nor do I think it's fair to Jesus to say He couldn't really have been tempted.  Whether He (or the Father) knew He was going to pass the temptations is different than whether He actually felt temptation as a man.  To blow some of this stuff off as for the purposes of teaching is I think a mistake.

To me the Trinity is much like water.   You have Liquid, Gas, and Ice == But all three are still composed of 100% of H2O, all equal, all the same, just in different forms.

This ends up being the point of the argument.  They aren't this.  They are distinct entities, but at the same time they are one.   We can simplify them down to this if we try, but then we will run into spots in the Bible where this doesn't work.

This is along with many examples above already quoted.

Why is important to believe Jesus was tempted?  This again comes down to the dualness (while at the same time oneness) of who Jesus in the form of a man was.

If Jesus was God but with "man" clothes on (meaning not fully human, but appearing in the form of a man only), His death is a charade.  What was there to mourn when this form died?  Nothing.  God didn't need to be resurrected.  God wasn't dead.  He had already proved He could bring others back from the dead, so what would this "death" add?   And nothing would be any different on that day then any other of existance.  Jesus/God (if were are not considering them unique entities only different forms) was still around spiritually the same as He always was (even those moments when Jesus was walking around on Earth).  The only difference was there was a shell of a mortal buried behind a rock.  What was there to overcome?

Thinking about Jesus taking on the weight of the sin of the world becomes a much different thing if we leave it as He wasn't ever fully human and that anything that was human in nature was simply for demonstration.

Something else to consider with the temptation.  If this truly was a teaching thing, where was a disciple?  This wasn't done in front of anyone (unless I'm missing something).  So this means

a) It was a story which Jesus later told to all of the disciples.  If it was that, you now have two questions.

1) Was this only a story?  (Meaning it never actually happened but was for teaching only) 

2) If it was a story which He told to all of the disciples, and He used "I was tempted" but wasn't, again there is the issue of lying (which never got answered above).

b) It was a divine inspiration to the Gospel writers only.  Really the same questions 1&2 above still exist.

I realize that after all this, why it is important to believe He was tempted comes down to this: 

I'll need to respond to the rest of this later, however you lost me on the word tempted.  Let me put this in an example:

1) Eve is walking in the garden and an animal offers her fruit.  There is no consideration of ever even listening to the snake and she continues walking.

2a) Eve is walking in the garden and the snake offers her fruit.  She stops to consider what it is the snake is saying and analyzes the consequences of doing what it is that is said (as well as the consequences of not doing what is said).  After considering that, she decides not to eat the fruit, ignores the snake and continues on, not pondering on it any further.

2b)  Eve is walking in the garden and the snake offers her fruit.  She stops to consider what it is the snake is saying and analyzes the consequences of doing what it is that is said (as well as the consequences of not doing what is said).  After considering that, she decides not to eat the fruit, ignores the snake and continues on, however interally wishing she had taken the fruit.

3)  Eve is walking in the garden and the snake offers her fruit.  She stops to consider what it is the snake is saying.  Again  I believe part of this is she had to analyze the consequences of doing what it is that is said (as well as the consequences of not doing what is said).  After considering that, she decides listen to the snake and to eat the fruit.

4) Eve is walking in the garden and as she walks by a tree, eats some fruit without any thought as to what tree it was from.

Which of those do you consider temptations?  Which of those do you consider sinful?

In my mind both 2s & 3 are temptations.  In 4 she has grown too accustomed to the sin for it to be tempting.

And I think 2b, 3 & 4 are the sinful ones. 

I think Jesus was tempted and reacted in the same manner as number 2 describes.  Your explanation seems to have him in the number 1 example. 

JJ,

I just don't think we can put any more emphasis on Jesus being man than we do on him being God.  If he was fully both, then he was equally both and lacking in neither.

Reading your posts, I get the exact opposite sense from you.  As a matter of fact, instead of posting my example, I almost pondered what you thought the difference was between what Jesus was able to accomplish on Earth by appearing in the form of man that He wouldn't have been able to by appearing as Spirit.

You'll also want to go back and reread the account of Jesus's temptation.  There is absolutely no evidence that He did this in front of his disciples.  As a matter of fact, if you read it He was led by the Holy Spirit (why did He need to be led by the Holy Spirit?) to the desert where He was tempted (not just the 3 recorded incidents) for 40 days without food.  I would think that if there were any disciples around, you have to account for them somehow (How did they respond to the temptations including being without food themselves?).

Lastly, let me ask you this.  Do you think Jesus thinks about you?  If so, you seem to have a dilemna.  How (or why) does He think about you when He has the foreknowledge of what you are going to do?

 11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

If this wasn't about teaching the Apostles why didn't Jesus just say: "Away from me Satan!" on the first question? Where does it indicate in the entire Chapter where Jesus ever contemplated accepting or evaluated the consequences? It also doesn't say that Jesus told the apostles that this is what happened.  But it is written as if the writer (Matthew) was a witness to this incident. So I am not sure if they were there or not and I am not sure if the tempting was physical or spiritual, but what I am certain of is that the message that Jesus (through Matthew's Gospel) was trying to impart was how to deal with the Devil and temptation when it is presented to you. By using the Word of God to rebuke him and relying on God. 
It was also another opportunity to underscore that they should rely on God for all of their needs (the first temptation), that they should not test God (the second) and that they should worship the Lord God above all else (the third). Three key lessons that the Apostles and especially the Jews needed to learn about God, considering that they routinely sinned in exactly these three ways all throughout the OT. 
 
Really there isn't enough information for us to know exactly what and how it happened, but there is enough information for us to learn what he wanted us to learn. I think there are a lot of examples all throughout the bible that fit this type of scenario. So for me it is easier to believe the way I do, than trying to figure out how it was possible to see all of the Kingdoms of the World from a Mountain, when I know from personal mountain climbing experience (Including Mt Nebo, one of the high Mountains in the area near where Jesus was Baptized) that it is physically impossible. But like I always say, I freely admit that I could be wrong. 

Can you explain how he could see all of the Kingdoms of the World from a Mountain? 
What about the mustard seed? It wasn't the smallest then and isn't now...?
Easier for me to believe it was about the learning, not the technical details...
If what you believe convicts you to love Christ, then the Holy Spirit has spoken to you and touched your heart in that way, just as he has done so in a different way with me.
Cheers and God Bless!

Lastly, let me ask you this.  Do you think Jesus thinks about you?  If so, you seem to have a dilemna.  How (or why) does He think about you when He has the foreknowledge of what you are going to do?

Absoulutely, he thinks about me. I don't believe that Jesus/God/or the Holy Spirit are bound by the constraints of time as we know it.  They can operate in and out of it as they desire. They are all powerful and omnipresent.

Let me answer your question of foreknowledge with a question: If Jesus doesn't have foreknowldege how is he the Alpha and the Omega?  He is the beginning and the end, the creator of all things...  He knew what would happen in the end of times, when he gave his revelation to John.  Why would we think that he didn't have foreknowledge.  To me there is a big difference between foreknowledge and predestiny (which is what I believe you thought I was reffering to).  Foreknowledge doesn't indicate interference.  Also didn't he know us before we were formed?
Cheers and God Bless

My point is this.  If Jesus thinks of you now with foreknowledge of you and what it is you are going to do, why is it you're so sure He didn't do any thinking while being tempted?  That's 40 days, 40 nights without food and apparently without thought.

I can't answer, "notice it doesn't say he considered anything" if you don't believe to be tempted you actually have to consider what it is that is said or seen to be tempted.  So every time Jesus walked by a cliff, (like when He cast the pigs into the sea) he was tempted.  That has to be the conclusion I reach if I believe tempted incurs no thought.

As for why Jesus didn't say "Away from me, Satan" earlier.  The three tempations recorded were specific to areas where we are tempted, so there were specific reasons those were recorded.

You looked at Matthew, you might also want to look at Luke 4.

It's not just the 3 recorded things.  He was tempted this entire time.  And yet those items are not being recorded and there seems to be no indication of any disciples there.

JJ,

I really struggle replying because your answers seem to be all over the place to fit in with your beliefs.  In your last response, you go from saying it doesn't say the disciples aren't there (but it also doesn't say they are), to saying this may have been occuring in the spirit realm. 

There are many things I'd like to discuss in this thread, mainly because I think sometimes we take what Jesus suffered for us too lightly.  I realize it's quite possible to go the other way as well.  When I see comments like "Again if it was in God's plan, he could have just blinked an eye and our sins would have been wiped away", it takes from the pain Jesus suffered and it invalidates the reason He had to come.   If that's the case, Jesus didn't have to come and die for our sins.  If God put His Son through this and there was another way (especially as easy as it's made to sound above), how God can be a just God must be argued.  It comes back to this being a big show.  That comes back to why I haven't moved off the temptation thing. 

I also need to comment on the simplicity thing.  Simplicity is great when there's call for it.  However, people have a tendency to oversimplify things that shouldn't be simplified and overcomplicating those things that should be simple.  That goes back to what I said above about the Trinity.  I don't think there's anything on this planet (or Universe) that is able to be used to illustrate the Trinity.  I don't think the Trinity is something we were necessarily meant to understand.  (And I'm not planning on discussing this further here, but mention it because it keeps coming up)

So back to temptation.  Temptation as I tried to illustrate in the example means having to consider the options.  If you don't, I don't see how one can be considered to have been tempted.  I think if you look at the example, without thinking about which is necessary to win your argument, there is no way that number one can be considered temptation.  When you were mountain climbing were you tempted to throw yourself off?  When you drive on a bridge, are you tempted (every time) to drive off?  I'm sure you (like me) have heard people say about things which are temptations, "I don't like that particular thing, so it's not a temptation to me".

As for my question above, I was making the point that foreknowledge does not cancel out thought.  Your argument was that because Jesus had the foreknowledge of the temptations, that automatically cancelled out thought about the temptation.  Yet when I asked you whether you thought Jesus thought about you (again with the same level of foreknowledge), you said yes.   Why in one situation does foreknowledge automatically cancel out thought, but in the other it does not?

As for the mustard seed, it isn't recorded that anyone there argued with Him, so apparently no one had issues with His claim.  So that probably was the smallest seed anyone there planted in the ground. :)  No I'm not going to go on record as having the right answer on that one, but it seems to fit, without adding any complexity and without taking anything away.

1) to try whether a thing can be done

a) to attempt, endeavour

2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself

a) in a good sense

b) in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments

c) to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin

1) to solicit to sin, to tempt

a) of the temptations of the devil

d) after the OT usage

1) of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith

2) men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted

3) by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

1) an experiment, attempt, trial, proving

a) trial, proving: the trial made of you by my bodily condition, since condition served as to test the love of the Galatians toward Paul (Gal. 4:14)

b) the trial of man's fidelity, integrity, virtue, constancy

1) an enticement to sin, temptation, whether arising from the desires or from the outward circumstances

2) an internal temptation to sin

a) of the temptation by which the devil sought to divert Jesus the Messiah from his divine errand

3) of the condition of things, or a mental state, by which we are enticed to sin, or to a lapse from the faith and holiness

4) adversity, affliction, trouble: sent by God and serving to test or prove one's character, faith, holiness

c) temptation (i.e. trial) of God by men

1) rebellion against God, by which his power and justice are, as it were, put to the proof and challenged to show themselves

Look at Hebrews 2:18 because the same word is used to describe temptation for us (as well as Jesus).   So to me that neither proves nor disproves the thinking aspect.  As a matter of fact it suggests that the very thing we go through, He went through.  (Unless we don't think about these things.)

Here's something else to consider.  Foreknowledge (I think) we agreed does not exclude thinking.  Nor does it exclude pre-thinking.  Your conversation "example" with God knowing the outcome would suggest He thought about what His son Jesus would be going through.  Which would mean He considered the "options" (#2a) before allowing His Son to go through it, wouldn't it?

I realize I'm not sure why I continue with this discussion, so it's probably time to move on.  I don't expect either of us to budge and I don't think I have much more to say on why I think it's important to me and I even think that the arguing is going to water that down.  So best to move on.

My closing though.  If Jesus didn't have to suffer on the cross, if His blood isn't on our hands (which it wouldn't be if there was another way to get rid of sin), that changes everything.

Hebrews 2:18: Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Notice the sentence says "Because he suffered", not because he contemplated sin...

How does one suffer in temptation?   I don't think in Example 1 above there is any suffering, because there isn't a tempation that is realized. Eve would continue walking on, never even thinking about the snake or the fruit again.  And in the moment there was no suffering.

IMHO, the suffering was from the fasting. Imagine going 40 days and nights without food or water in the desert (nearly impossible to do, I have been to that area and it is harsh! Even if you had water, it would still be extraordinarily difficult).  In fact, we also know that Jesus was in such bad shape from the fasting, that he was cared for by the Angels afterward... My guess is that he was in pretty bad shape for that to have happened.

Norm, I assume you are trying to say that the text implies that he suffered because of the temptation. Like I said above I would need supporting evidence to believe that myself.  I believe what the text is saying is that he suffered when he was tempted (the word tempted is added to denote the timeframe when the suffering occurred, not that the temptation caused the suffering).

I don't see where there is anything in any of the text that indicates there is suffering in or caused by temptation (especially in this usage of the word tempted that we are discussing). In fact as I showed you earlier the Greek definition of this word indicates it was something that was done by the Devil to Jesus, but does not indicate it was inflicting harm or suffering.  None of the information I have found yet, indicates that the temptation caused any suffering.  Now, if I/we find something that does indicate that in relation to this verse, then I could happily take it the way you are saying.

WRT to suffering I do believe that we can see here that resisting temptation is not always easy (especially when fasting in the desert) and doing so may cause some pain and suffering...  Yet another learning lesson. 

Believe me guys, I don't have any personal gain or loss in being right or wrong, I am just doing my best to understand the material available and then form my opinion based on that facts as I understand them and what I feel the Holy Spirit leading me to believe.  I learn from things folks on here point out all of the time (including Zach) and I have been wrong many, many times about stuff I thought was once "this way or that way", and I could be wrong on this too.  But as of yet, it has not been revealed to me as why or how I am not understanding this correctly.  But who knows, maybe tomorrow I will run across something that will throw a monkey wrench in my whole view and then I will have to reassess my understanding.  I personally tend to believe the bible is so deep, that none if us will ever understand all of its meaning until we are in Heaven.  So new revelations as we grow in Christ should be expected and I am still a new Christian so maybe I will learn something new on this someday, who knows...

The bible doesn't talk about this; but look at the story of Job, is it possible that God allowed Jesus to be treated as Job was (where he allowed the Devil to inflict physical pain and suffering upon him, to pressure him to accept his offer of temptation)?  Could that have caused the suffering?  I have no idea, because the bible doesn't tell us.  Do I think it could have happened? Yes.  Does that change what I believe WRT to temptation? No.  To me there is a big difference in the infliction of pain and suffering and being tempted.

Don't get me wrong I do understand that one of the possible usages of the word temptation does mean what you guys are saying that it means, but within the context/perspective and due to the definition it simply doesn't fit properly here in these verses.

WRT to face value: To me that is exactly what I am doing. Like I said before when I first read through this, the way I understand it now is very close to how it appeared to me when I first read it, but then when I did some additional research just to make sure I was reading it correctly, luckily it happened to line up.  Sometimes when I look stuff up, I find that I didn't read it correctly so I have to go back and readjust. No problem because egg wipes right off! lol

To me everything rests on a proper understanding of the intended language.  We have a big problem with this in English.  In Hebrew there is something like 5.5 Million words, in Greek there are at least 72 Million words and in English there are only a little less than a million words (The numbers are approximate of course…lol). So to make up for the shortcoming in the English language, when a book is translated into English some words have to have multiple meanings. Whereas in the original languages, we would have seen the subtle differences, because a different word would have been used.  But as we see here even subtle differences can make a big difference.

Here is a little info on how I arrive at the conclusions that I do (you may not care, but I am bored...).  To me it is critical to understand three main things when doing bible research (and I am no scholar, so take this with a grain of salt). First, is the usage of the words and their definitions as they were intended.  Strong’s concordance is a must for me, I use it all of the time and it is apparent that we sometimes misunderstand word meanings (because of multiple possible meanings) and the concordance will help us to learn which meaning is applicable in which location.  Which as we found here can drastically change the understanding of the events we are reading about.  Second, is perspective. Defining and understanding the perspective is extremely important because there are three distinct perspectives as far as I can tell (God's Perspective and Man's Perspective and both simultaneously). In other words, are we looking at a certain subject from the context of time in man's world (linear) or from the context of eternal time (nonlinear) or both?  Big difference in the three. Those differences will also cause us to see things and define things differently as well. Lastly, is the message/learning that should come from the passage at hand.  There are many things that we simply will never be able to know about the bible and the writers of the bible (at least until Jesus returns).  We can make our best guess and formulate our best theories, but the bottom line is that we just don't know.  But, what we do know is that the bible is inspired by God and is inerrant. So we have to take some things as they are presented and extract the applicable learning from them, so that we can apply that lesson in our lives.  I think God is more concerned with us applying the lessons that are apparent and intended, than trying to figure out the details of the story, that were not ever intended to be the focus in the first place. Since I have come to this method of doing research, I have been able to get past many hurdles that were very difficult for me to understand.  Because even if I can't understand some aspects of the passage due to a lack of information, I will focus on the message/learning and then everything seems to fall in place after that.  I believe that happens because I was initially not looking at what was important (I can be distracted easily at times), then when my focus  and heart is right, the Holy Spirit kicks in and says....Yea for you!  Do you see now? And I say “ Yes, I do. Thank You Lord. (Not literally...but you get my point). Then I will feel convicted about the message and my understanding of it.  

Wow, I wonder how long we can keep this going?  :-) lol.

Cheers and God Bless

I think this is it.  I really do. I will not be tempted to answer next time. ;) 

Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Your argument is that the suffering was that He was hungry, not that he was tempted.  Read the second half of that verse.  How does being hungry (if that was the suffering) aid him in helping us when we are tempted?   On the other hand if his suffering was in being tempted, that would seem to aid him in helping us when we are tempted.

As for the heroin and others, how I would respond IF I don't think about it is not relevant.  I covered that above.  It's not a tempation.

If I said, "He couldn't be tempted." is that a true statement?  If I accept your version of the word tempted, it can't be.  The presence of something that could be considered a temptation means that someone was tempted.  No thought necessary. 

For someone who has said that it doesn't make a difference where this argument ends, you sure seem to be arguing against the way a common word is understood.  I've already said why it matters to me.