Satan's part in the resurrection

Zombrex

This probably deserves a thread of its own from the Judas thread

Ok, as I understand it Jesus' death as atonement for the sins of man is understood to have been both predicted in the Old Testament prophecies, predicted by Jesus himself before his death, and understood by some of his followers such as John the Baptist.

Mark 10
32They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33"We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise."

Matthew 26
28This is my blood of the [a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

My question is Satan appears to know that Jesus is the Son of God when he is tempting him, how did Satan not know or understand what was going to happen when Jesus was telling people around him exactly why he was here?

And if Satan did understand why did he participate in the capture of Jesus through Judas?

Christian spirited answers only please

PDN

Sin and rebellion do not always behave rationally.

Trolls re-register and post in this forum when I've banned them under five different pen names already.

Husbands kid themselves that they can have an affair without getting caught.

Satan kids himself that he can frustrate the purpose of God.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Sin and rebellion do not always behave rationally.

True, but Satan is described as both cunning and clever (unlike say someone who registers 5 times to troll Christian forum :pac:).

It seems the obvious thing to do here to frustrate God's plans would be to try and keep Jesus alive for as long as possible, rather than hassen his death proactively

Are you saying he didn't realise what is going to happen, or he believe he could get around it some how? Or that he simply wasn't thinking straight?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

True, but Satan is described as both cunning and clever (unlike say someone who registers 5 times to troll Christian forum :pac:).

It seems the obvious thing to do here to frustrate God's plans would be to try and keep Jesus alive for as long as possible, rather than hassen his death proactively

Are you saying he didn't realise what is going to happen, or he believe he could get around it some how? Or that he simply wasn't thinking straight?

Sorry, I may be missing the obvious, but what was Satans part in the resurrection?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

True, but Satan is described as both cunning and clever (unlike say someone who registers 5 times to troll Christian forum :pac:).

It seems the obvious thing to do here to frustrate God's plans would be to try and keep Jesus alive for as long as possible, rather than hassen his death proactively

Are you saying he didn't realise what is going to happen, or he believe he could get around it some how? Or that he simply wasn't thinking straight?

I must say that is an excellent observation. I oft thought that myself. But like PDN says, he doesn't act rationally. Satan had his chance with Jesus in the wilderness right? He got right out there and tempted Him for forty days and nights. While Jesus was in His weakest physical state, Satan gave it his best shot and still couldn't beat Him. But the scripture says that he departed to wait for a more opportune time for another attack. This came when he clothed himself with Peter. Under the guise of one of His closest followers and while Jesus was in yet another weakened condition after the mount, Satan did actually attempt to stop Jesus going to the cross, but Jesus saw right through Peter to Satan and rebuked him accordingly. Satan always comes when you are at your weakest. He’s a sleeveen like that. Anyway, so what is Satan to do? He can't get Jesus so he decides to gnaw away at the ones closest to Him; hence he enters Judas and made Judas do his dastardly deed, betraying his Master to his Master's enemies. You could say Satan was reduced to grasping at straws (for want of a better phrase). Why do you think Judas felt ashamed after his act? Because while he was doing it Satan was possessing him, probably suggesting to his mind that if he betrayed Jesus to His enemies then Jesus would kill Him them as soon as they laid hands on Him and then He would set up His Kingdom as Messiah on earth right there just like the Jews were expecting the Messiah to do. Judas was a follower of Jesus for over three years remember, he believed in the kingdom of God. But his plans didn’t quite gel with God’s plan of the cross and Satan knew it. Satan couldn't win Jesus, he nearly won Peter and he actually won Judas. He is a very powerful enemy. He hides and waits, and always comes as an angel of light. He knows everyone’s weakness and preys on it, and we are no match for him without God in us. It’s a war, what can I say?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry, I may be missing the obvious, but what was Satans part in the resurrection?

He possessed Judas during the betrayal. Or at least that is my understanding from the Judas thread

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

He possessed Judas during the betrayal. Or at least that is my understanding from the Judas thread

Really? Who said that? Actually, i wont be lazy, I'll go and check the Judas thread:)

I personally would not call it possession that occured. Temptation and influence, not posession. Posession, biblically speaking, was quite concise in its definition IIRC. More 'exorcist' like. Satan however, trys to tempt and influence. When Jesus said to Peter 'Get behind me Satan'. I would not see that as a posession, but rather that Satan had overcome Peters will. Peter was the one speaking and believing what he was saying, but he had been influenced by Satan. Same with Judas. Satan got at Judas' weakness, greed. Judas had already been pilfering the treasury, and Satan took advantage of this weakness.

If your question is then 'Why did Satan help Jesus get killed'. Well, he hated him. Also, there's nothing IIRC that suggests that he was privy to Gods plan. We as Christians look back at the events and see the prophesies etc. However, so many rejected Christ. Learned men. Some of the Jewish leaders would have had an idea who he was, but they were so caught up in their own religious tradition and its corruption, that they couldn't bring themselves to admit it. Yes, it sounds unbelievale that they witnessed his wisdom. They witnessed his signs and healings etc, yet they looked for any excuse to reject him. They had been so caught up in their 'Religion' that they hadn't a clue who God was. They loved their own importance more. Satan is cunning, but not wise. There is no evidence, that he knew what was going on. His hatread could have blinded him for all we know.

It is a good question though, and I don't think there is a definitive answer tbh.

Hangsangwich

Christs suffering and death on the cross was the will of God the Father. Traditionally, it has been taught in Christianity that Satan desired that Jesus would reject the cross. Indeed, Jesus had the power to overcome the cross(by force if He so wished). But Jesus loves the Almighty Father and knew this was the only redemption or atonement worthy to pay for the sin of mankind. Satan was a rebel, and the price he paid for his rebellious actions was expulsion from Heaven. He wanted Jesus to rebel also. He thought he could divide God. And this was his one chance, as God was at His weakest taking on flesh on earth. But Jesus embraced the cross of suffering, despite being tempted to the end.
I think this was very well portrayed in the film, "The Passion of the Christ".
When Jesus expired on the cross, Satan was left howling with rage alone in hell. Satan opposes the will of God at every turn, and tries to tempt us to oppose it too. But he is a loser, and that is why he has lost.

prinz

Like JimiTime pointed out I don't see anything that suggests 'Satan' knew what was happening. IMO the Devil wanted Jesus to die, because he did not fully comprehend the resurrection himself. I think the devil underestimated God's power via Jesus 'as a human' to conquer death. The devil saw the execution as a way to stop the spreading of Jesus' message and miracles etc, so he was more than happy to let things progress. What he wasn't expecting was a ressurection in human form.I believe the devil saw the crucifixion as the end of God's/Jesus' mission to earth. If Jesus had simply died and his spirit returned to heaven then it's possible the Christian community could have floundered.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Like JimiTime pointed out I don't see anything that suggests 'Satan' knew what was happening. IMO the Devil wanted Jesus to die, because he did not fully comprehend the resurrection himself. I think the devil underestimated God's power via Jesus 'as a human' to conquer death. The devil saw the execution as a way to stop the spreading of Jesus' message and miracles etc, so he was more than happy to let things progress. What he wasn't expecting was a ressurection in human form.I believe the devil saw the crucifixion as the end of God's/Jesus' mission to earth. If Jesus had simply died and his spirit returned to heaven then it's possible the Christian community could have floundered.

Also, Satan had already seen how he could get to the apostles. He could easily have thought, 'without Jesus here to constantly correct their step and inspire and guide, I'll 'ave em!'. My bro actually proposed the idea that one of Jesus' big worries as he wept on the mount of olives was, 'Are these apostles going to be ready for this'. At this, the eve of his torture and death, the apostles nodded off to sleep. Peter had already allowed himself be influenced by Satan, so had Judas. There seemed to be some bickering at various times also. Then Thomas wouldn't believe he was resurrected etc. Satan, again not really knowing what was to come (i.e. Gods Holy Spirit to lift up the disciples and guide them), probably thought, I'll get them, they wont resist me.

At the end of the day, it doesn't make sense that Satan rebelled in the first place. Trying to look for Satans 'Rationale' I think is probably a fruitless endeavour.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

My question is Satan appears to know that Jesus is the Son of God when he is tempting him, how did Satan not know or understand what was going to happen when Jesus was telling people around him exactly why he was here?

I'd agree with PDN's comment that evil is evil first and rational second. Witness Hitler.

But there is perhaps something more in your comment about Jesus telling people exactly why he was here. The fact was that he generally spoke in riddle, parable and type - not directly, not exactly. And unless what he was saying was illuminated to a person by the Holy Spirit (eg: Peters confession of Jesus as the Christ or the thief on the cross recognising Christ as Lord) then they wouldn't/couldn't see the truth or extent of truth.

Satan, not illuminated by the Holy Spirit, didn't actually know what, exactly, was going on - in other words.

Zombrex

Thanks guys.

The consensus seems to be that Satan didn't realise or appreciate the bigger picture that he was part of.

Hotspace

There is only one way to make sense of the contradictions inherent in Satan possessing Judas to betray Jesus and that is to treat the various sources as a set of failed historic biased documents handed down in a melting pot of competing religions by a semi literate society in scattered communities who did not belong to the modern technological and scientific age. Instead they belonged to an age that was highly superstitious; they believed that disease was the result of evil spirit possessions. When you talk of false Christs in this forum then there could never be - and, indeed, there has not been – a false Christ to dupe a technological advanced society. But, there are new religions (or, false Christs) to dupe superstitious societies that linger in less advanced societies of the world.

When biblical scholars, both religious and secular alike, look at the four canonical gospels they agree that Mark is the most unembellished and unbiased and therefore the source from which the others were written. And, historians agree it is the earliest gospel. To make sense of this, therefore, we must look to other historical records and perspectives. When we look at the gospel of Judas interesting and better explanations occur. Listen to what Elaine Pagels says about the historical documents and how to reconcile them.

Taken from http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/02/elaine_pagels/

Well, he [Judas] has become the symbol of treachery and betrayal. But once you start to look at the gospels one by one, you realize that followers of Jesus were trying to understand what had happened after he was arrested and killed. They knew Judas had handed him over to the people who arrested him. The earliest gospel, Mark, says Judas handed him over, but it doesn't give any motive at all. The people who wrote after Mark -- Matthew's and Luke's gospels -- apparently felt that what was wrong with the Gospel of Mark was that there was no motive. So Matthew adds a motive. Matthew says Judas went to the chief priests who were Jesus' enemies, and said, "What will you give me if I hand him over to you?" And they agree on a certain sum of money. So in Matthew's view, the motive was greed. In Luke's gospel, it's entirely different. It says the power of evil took over Judas. Satan entered into him.

I think Luke is struggling with the question, If Jesus is the son of God, how could he be taken by a mere trick, by a human being? And Luke is trying to show that all evil power was concentrated in Judas. So they are very different stories. However, other gospels, like John's, suggest that Jesus not only anticipated what was going to happen but initiated it. The Gospel of John says that he told Judas to go out and do what he had to do, which Jesus knew was to betray him. So the Gospel of Judas just takes the suggestion one step further. Jesus not only knew what was going to happen but initiated the action.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

When biblical scholars, both religious and secular alike, look at the four canonical gospels they agree that Mark is the most unembellished and unbiased and therefore the source from which the others were written. And, historians agree it is the earliest gospel. To make sense of this, therefore, we must look to other historical records and perspectives.

No, that's not quite correct - but it's an interesting spin to try to discredit the Biblical documents.

Most biblical scholars agree that Mark is the earliest of the canonical Gospels (in fact, they agree it's the earliest of any Gospels, canonical or otherwise). However, that is not because of 'embellishments'' (nicely chosen slightly pejorative term). The reasoning is that where Matthew and Luke use identical wording the same usage is also found in Mark. Where Matthew and Luke use different wording, or record different details, these variations are not found in Mark. Therefore it is logical to conclude that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a (not 'the') source - but each had additional sources as well.

Think of it this way. Two police officers (Adam and Steve) are investigating an incident. They both interview Witness A. PC Adam also interviews Witness B and PC Steve interviews witness C. Their notes should coincide in many places since they both interviewed Witness A. However, PC Adam's notes will include details (from Witness that PC Steve omits. Likewise PC Steve's notes will include material (from Witness C) not found in PC Adam's notebook. These, however, simply indicate different sources. Only someone attempting to unfairly impugn the integrity of the police officers concerned would assume that the unique material in each notebook represents 'embellishments'.

So the Gospel of Judas just takes the suggestion one step further. Jesus not only knew what was going to happen but initiated the action.

Well you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to quote what most biblical scholars and historians believe about the primacy of Mark's Gospel, then you should also listen to the opinion of that same majority when they say that the Gospel of Judas represents the theology of a fairly late Gnostic sect and has little or no relation with historical reality.

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

Most biblical scholars agree that Mark is the earliest of the canonical Gospels (in fact, they agree it's the earliest of any Gospels, canonical or otherwise). However, that is not because of 'embellishments'' (nicely chosen slightly pejorative term). The reasoning is that where Matthew and Luke use identical wording the same usage is also found in Mark. Where Matthew and Luke use different wording, or record different details, these variations are not found in Mark. Therefore it is logical to conclude that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a (not 'the') source - but each had additional sources as well.

I quite agree. Apparently approximately 91% of Mark is paralleled with only minor variations in Luke and/or Matthew. The same thing can be said of about 50% of Matthew and about 41% of Luke. Of these parallels, many of them agree in exact order and wording. This has lead to the elucidation of the "synoptic problem." How are we to explain the obvious similarities in wording that we find in these passages, especially since Jesus spoke and taught primarily in Aramaic, and these agreements in exact wording are in Greek? A related problem is the question of why, when John reports a similar incident or saying in the life of Jesus, there is little or no exactness present in the wording, i.e., compared with the three synoptic Gospels.

Such data suggest literary links between the three synoptic gospels, i.e.,they do not resemble each other because they are three separate "eyewitness" reports of what Jesus said and did, but because they were based upon shared written documents, i.e., branches of the same literary tree, individually "ornamented" (revised/redacted). One of the most prevalent theories so far is that Mark was one such primary document. The other primary document contained the parallels shared by Matthew and Luke but not shared by Mark, this second document being known as "Q".

PDN wrote: »

Well you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to quote what most biblical scholars and historians believe about the primacy of Mark's Gospel, then you should also listen to the opinion of that same majority when they say that the Gospel of Judas represents the theology of a fairly late Gnostic sect and has little or no relation with historical reality

Can we really know with reliable certainty that history records actually what happened? The further we go back in time the more unreliable history becomes. This is especially true when there have been many fraudulent changes to historical documents. There is a lot of doubt for any supposed historical event, especially momentous and miraculous ones.

How do you know that the theology contained in the Judas Gospel doesn’t represent the true theology? Just because it came later doesn’t somehow invalidate it. I’ve used this argument under a different guise elsewhere in these forums. How do you know that modern day Christianity that allows women and homosexual priests is the correct Christianity? It came later than the biblical view of women and homosexuality, which one is correct? If the biblical view is correct then why are there women and homosexual priests? The simple answer is that each age deals with the pressures of society and the changing moral zeitgeist.

antiskeptic

Hotspace wrote: »

...one way to make sense of the contradictions inherent in Satan possessing Judas to betray Jesus and that is to...

consider what Wicknight has concluded the Christian consensus to be..

..that Satan didn't realise or appreciate the bigger picture that he was part of.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

How do you know that the theology contained in the Judas Gospel doesn’t represent the true theology? Just because it came later doesn’t somehow invalidate it.

So the majority of biblical scholars and historians, whom you are happy to cite as an authority when discussing the primacy of Mark, don't know what they're talking about when they are near unanimous in assessing the teaching of the Gospel of Judas as being a much later development?

It is not just that the Gospel of Judas is much later. We can also trace its teaching as a steady development in other Gnostic documents.

How do you know that modern day Christianity that allows women and homosexual priests is the correct Christianity?

I don't know any such thing. Such a Christianity would be anything but correct because it contradicts the Christianity we see in the earliest Christian documents. The idea of a distinct priesthood is, I believe, a perversion of the original Christian position where all believers were priests.

If the biblical view is correct then why are there women and homosexual priests?

For the same reason that churches have priests at all - because they ignore the biblical view.

Soul Winner

Hotspace wrote: »

Mark, says Judas handed him over, but it doesn't give any motive at all.

What about this for motive?:

"And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them. Mark 14 3-10

Who do you think it was who was doing the most complaining when the woman was pouring the expensive ointment on Jesus? Judas. Why? Becaue he carreid the bag with the money and if the poor were going to get anything it would have to go through him first.

"For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor." John 13:29

So much for the theory that Mark gives no motive at all.

Hotspace wrote: »

The people who wrote after Mark -- Matthew's and Luke's gospels -- apparently felt that what was wrong with the Gospel of Mark was that there was no motive.

She's wrong. There clearly was motive in Mark's account as pointed out above.

Hotspace wrote: »

So Matthew adds a motive. Matthew says Judas went to the chief priests who were Jesus' enemies, and said, "What will you give me if I hand him over to you?"

And that is consistent with Mark.

Hotspace wrote: »

And they agree on a certain sum of money. So in Matthew's view, the motive was greed. In Luke's gospel, it's entirely different. It says the power of evil took over Judas. Satan entered into him.

In Mark's account it was also greed. And as the love of money is the root of all evil, then Satan entering Judas (as in Luke's account) would be consistent with that as he is called the evil one.