Did Jesus Spend 40 Days in the Desert?

[Kirran]

Apparently 40 was also the highest number ever counted to on Sesame Street

God is indeed great!

I can't say I followed the line of argumentation, but I agree with your conclusion regardless!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I stumbled upon a blog this afternoon that questioned the story in Matthew 4:1-11 that states Jesus spent 40 day in the desert.

The story suggest that rather than spend 40 days in the desert, Jesus crossed into India, where he learned the teachings of the Buddha, and crossed back to Israel. Upon sharing what he learned, he found rejection, and rather than continuing to attempt to share these teachings, instead shared the the teachings he had learned through methods the people would understand.

Thoughts? Rants? Comments about my fashion sense?

40 days to learn the Buddha's ways? Fast!

Good thing Buddhism showed Jesus how to resurrect Himself from the dead! Good work, that!

 

[Jumi]

40 days to learn the Buddha's ways? Fast!

That would indeed be fast.

Good thing Buddhism showed Jesus how to resurrect Himself from the dead! Good work, that!

I think resurrection and all kinds of "supernatural things" would have been seen as pointless in Buddhism. If self-resurrection was a skill, what would be it's use given that you don't even live after it?

One day the Buddha came across an ascetic who was sitting by a river bank. This ascetic was known for his spiritual practice of austerity for good 25 years. The Buddha asked the ascetic, given all his hard work and labor, what he had received as a reward. The man replied with pride that, he was able to cross the river by walking on the water. The Buddha pointed in the direction of the ferry, indicating that the gain of the man was insignificant. He could, after all, cross the river for just one penny by using a ferry!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I stumbled upon a blog this afternoon that questioned the story in Matthew 4:1-11 that states Jesus spent 40 day in the desert.

The story suggest that rather than spend 40 days in the desert, Jesus crossed into India, where he learned the teachings of the Buddha, and crossed back to Israel. Upon sharing what he learned, he found rejection, and rather than continuing to attempt to share these teachings, instead shared the the teachings he had learned through methods the people would understand.

Thoughts? Rants? Comments about my fashion sense?

Slight tangent, but I've read that the ancient Hebrews used "40" the way we might use "a million", it can be a literal counting number, but it's often used just to mean "a who lot" or "a long time", and that's why that particular number comes up in Biblical descriptions so much.

I'm sure the literalists are turning purple at this point, but for everyone else, I just thought it an interesting side note.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Do yourself a favor, read the story of Jesus' life as it is presented in The Urantia Book. This book contends that Jesus spent a great deal of time traveling with an Indian merchant and his son around the Mediterranean seaports of the area. This is where he learned of Buddhism and the eastern religions. Of course, any theory is just speculation but the book does seem to fill a few holes.

The Urantia Book??! Gosh. Of all the forum regulars...

 

[Vouthon]

@SalixIncendium No, I'm quite positive that Jesus never set foot upon nor was influenced by anything Indian during his 40 day retreat from society.

Logistically, it just wouldn't have been possible for a Jewish peasant from the backwater of the Galilee to travel there in so short a time period. Indeed, as such a low-ranking denizen of a colonized buffer state of the Roman Empire, he wouldn't have enjoyed much agency or freedom of movement at all. He'd have been struggling to just get by like most (and unlike St. Paul, he never had the benefit of Roman citizenship).

Likewise, as @sayak83 has already explained, Jesus falls squarely within the prophetic tradition of ancient Israel. He did have a rather unconventional take on that tradition compared to most Jews of his day, however (which is where I must slightly disagree with sayak), for which reason one of the greatest New Testament scholars has referred to him as "the marginal Jew".

Professor John P. Meier, the esteemed American biblical scholar and historical Jesus researcher, explained in his book series, The Marginal Jew how:

"...His teaching evinced a style and content that did not jibe with the views and practices of the major Jewish religious groups of his day...

By the time he died, Jesus had managed to make himself appear obnoxious, dangerous, or suspicious to everyone, from pious Pharisees through political high priests to an ever vigilant Pilate. One reason Jesus met a swift and brutal end is simple: he alienated so many individuals and groups in Palestine that, when the final clash came in Jerusalem in 30 AD, he had very few people, especially people of influence, on his side.

The political marginality of this poor layman from the Galilean countryside with disturbing doctrines and claims was because he was dangerously anti-establishment and lacked a proper base in the capital...

Jesus dramatized his message of God welcoming sinners home into the Israel of the last days by choosing to associate and eat with the social and religious "low life" of his day, the toll collectors and sinners. No doubt this offended those who identified the renewal of Israel with stringent observance of the laws of ritual purity.

Jesus instead emphasized the joyful message that the eschatological banquet was at hand, a banquet anticipated in the meals he shared with the religiously marginalized. In keeping with this festive mood, he ordered his disciples not to practice voluntary fasting.

His nonascetic ways not only distinguished him from the Baptist but also exposed him to ridicule from the more conventionally devout. To them he was a bon vivant, "an eater and winedrinker, a friend of toll collectors and sinners" (Matt. 11:19)..."

(Powell, 130-133)
​

Likewise, the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes believed that Jesus' association with people scapegoated as 'sinners' by the mainstream, orthodox religious establishment (the holiness system and ritual puritans), was the factor that differentiated him more than any other from his contemporaries and predecessors. In the postscript to Jesus the Jew, he described this as constituting what was special about the teaching of Jesus, saying this:

In one respect, more than any other, Jesus differed from both his contemporaries and even his prophetic predecessors. The prophets spoke on behalf of the honest poor, and defended the widows and the fatherless, those oppressed and exploited by the wicked, rich and powerful. Jesus went further. In addition to proclaiming these blessed, he actually took his stand among the pariahs of his world, those despised by the respectable. Sinners were his table-companions and the ostracised tax-collectors and prostitutes his friends.

[Jesus the Jew, Geza Vermes, 1994, p. 196]

​

So Jesus was a bit of an oddball in his own day, to say the least.

He obviously didn't take everything from the prophets who preceded him, or else he wouldn't have come across so strange in his own religious landscape (strange enough to be convicted of blasphemy and delivered to the Romans for execution) - nevertheless the unique elements of his doctrine don't cry out "Hindu and Buddhist origin".

He just came up with them himself. Simple.

Some serious scholars like Crossan and Mack have argued that Jesus was at least partially influenced by Graeco-Roman ideas, especially the Cynic school, but that is more plausible because he would have likely been exposed to practitioners of such Roman philosophical schools in cosmopolitan cities like Sepphoris. Many Jews of this era - those on the more open-minded end of the spectrum - were wont to espouse some Hellenistic tendencies, such as Jesus's contemporary Philo (who was very much a Platonist) and even St. Paul (Platonic concepts and Stoic language crop up in his letters, mixed in with all the Judaism).

No prominent scholar that I know of, however, has ever argued in favour of there being an Indian derivation or inspiration for his ideas.

He was a Jew living in the Roman Empire. So it figures that he would, you know, act like a Jew living in the Roman Empire rather than a Brahmin or a Bhikkhu.

 

[The Anointed]

40 days to learn the Buddha's ways? Fast!

Good thing Buddhism showed Jesus how to resurrect Himself from the dead! Good work, that!

But of course, we all know that Jesus could not and did not, resurrect himself from the dead.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But of course, we all know that Jesus could not and did not, resurrect himself from the dead.

I agree. The Father and Spirit were involved with the Son. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[viole]

He could have done both. The Bible is silent about what he did between his childhood and the beginning of his ministry.

There are also legends in India that Jesus is buried in the mountains there.

Mmh. I live close to mountain Pilatus, where the rests of Pilatus lay in peace. Allegedely.

Ciao

- viole

 

[The Anointed]

I agree. The Father and Spirit were involved with the Son. Thanks for clarifying.

Deuteronomy 18: 18; YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, says to Moses; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put MY WORDS into his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command. I will punish all who do not heed MY WORDS that He will speak in my name etc.

Peter confirms that Jesus was that man, when, concerning the man Jesus, he says in. Acts 3: 22; For Moses said; "The Lord your God will send you a prophet, just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people, etc."

Did the people of his day believe that he was the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of our ancestors? No, they did not, for on the day of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the people escorting him cried out, "Blessed is he, who comes in the name of the Lord." Verifying that they believed Jesus to be the one that God had promised that he would choose from among the Israelites and send to the people to speak in his name.

Whose words were these in reference to the body of Jesus which had been filled by the spirit=information=words of the Lord which had descended upon him in the form of a dove? “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?”

They were the words that Jesus was commanded to say by “Who I Am,” who raised the body of Jesus, HIS earthly temple, which had been filled with his spirit.

Acts 5: 30; The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13: 30; But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee, etc.

1st Corinthians 6: 14; And God has both raised up the Lord and will also raise up us by his own power.

2nd Corinthians 1: 9; But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.

2nd Corinthians 4: 14; knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

Acts 17:20-31; “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by means of the MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from the dead."
_________________________It was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who put ‘HIS WORDS’ into the mouth of his obedient servant Jesus, who said; “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up.”

 

[BilliardsBall]

Deuteronomy 18: 18; YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, says to Moses; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put MY WORDS into his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command. I will punish all who do not heed MY WORDS that He will speak in my name etc.

Peter confirms that Jesus was that man, when, concerning the man Jesus, he says in. Acts 3: 22; For Moses said; "The Lord your God will send you a prophet, just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people, etc."

Did the people of his day believe that he was the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of our ancestors? No, they did not, for on the day of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the people escorting him cried out, "Blessed is he, who comes in the name of the Lord." Verifying that they believed Jesus to be the one that God had promised that he would choose from among the Israelites and send to the people to speak in his name.

Whose words were these in reference to the body of Jesus which had been filled by the spirit=information=words of the Lord which had descended upon him in the form of a dove? “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?”

They were the words that Jesus was commanded to say by “Who I Am,” who raised the body of Jesus, HIS earthly temple, which had been filled with his spirit.

Acts 5: 30; The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13: 30; But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee, etc.

1st Corinthians 6: 14; And God has both raised up the Lord and will also raise up us by his own power.

2nd Corinthians 1: 9; But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.

2nd Corinthians 4: 14; knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

Acts 17:20-31; “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by means of the MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from the dead."
_________________________It was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who put ‘HIS WORDS’ into the mouth of his obedient servant Jesus, who said; “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up.”

I agree that Jesus came in human flesh to save, however, Jesus is also God, King, divine, and One with the Father IMHO. Thanks for sharing from God's Word with me.