Significance of 40 Days

[AV1611VET]

It was only temporary though. More of a gesture really. For what purpose this would be done other than ego gratification, who can say?

Wow -- just wow.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Wow -- just wow.

You clearly haven't thought about it in any meaningful way.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Not sure if this helps, but these mention 39 days of fasting:
Chile to review anti-terrorism law after marathon hunger strike

http://www.santiagotimes.cl/ chile-review-anti-terrorism-law-marathon-hunger-strike/

Also,
70 Palestinian hunger strikers sent to Israeli hospitals

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/ news/ middle-east/ 11820-70-palestinian-hunger-strikers-sent-to-israeli-hospitals

'....Sands died on 5 May 1981 in Maze prison hospital after 66 days of hunger-striking, aged 27. ....'*

~~~
* The Fast To The Death Of Ten Irish Republican Hungerstrikers

 

[Papias]

AV wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias View Post

Or, if the whole point was to make them uncomfortable, then the nourishment would have divinely caused discomfort. Then again, since this is discomfort caused by God, would it not have been much worse than "normal" discomfort? And if so, would it have been as bad as torture in Hell?

If so, then why not just toss them in Hell for 40 days? Or make 4 seconds in Hell be perceived as 40 days, and save everyone some time?

Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

Had God done it your way, Jesus would have been [hellishly] hungry all 40 days.

Well, God could have made him hungry, of course. Though the text says he fasted and was hungry, so there is no indication that God did anything (if the fast was water but no food).

Overall, I guess it's unclear to me why it was carried out that way. Do you think He had water during that time?

None of my business, but are you a scientist?

Yes, I am.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

You clearly haven't thought about it in any meaningful way.

That's because I'm not a scientist who has been trained to think like you guys do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, God could have made him hungry, of course.

He didn't though.

Sorry you're disappointed.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That's because I'm not a scientist who has been trained to think like you guys do.

You're actually forbidden from thinking aren't you? In case the devil's thoughts or influence slip in and take you unawares. And the devil's thoughts/influence would include anything that casts any doubt at all, however slight, on the veracity of your rigid, unbending, creationist dogma ....correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're actually forbidden from thinking aren't you?

I think not.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Avid - as has been pointed out already, those hunger strikers are still consuming liquids, which means they can last much longer than 40 days - whereas the scripture is clear in a number of places that the fasts included no food nor water.

Might it be the tiny consideration that Jesus was hungry after 40 days, not thirsty and was first tempted with the temptation to abuse his power to make a wholesome loaf of oven baked bread, not a crate of ale or bottle of wine.

The fast had a specific goal -- to move Jesus into the battleground, from which he never emerged, until he was done making a public display, triumphing over all his/our enemies.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I think not.

The part of my post you ignored is correct though, isn't it.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

For what purpose this would be done other than ego gratification, who can say?

I take it you are aware that there would be prophecies which Jesus believed applied specifically to himself, and one's he would commit to trusting that the outcome would be for our benefit.

He certainly doesn't strike me as one who was driven by his base nature. He maintained that he was doing all this for us.

 

[Avid]

... The fast had a specific goal -- to move Jesus into the battleground...

Absolutely on target.

Jesus was to be as hungry as any ever had been, so it is not even guessed whether His human body craved sustenance. It was to be at the weakest point attainable that He was to be tempted with the very thing that would compromise His legal position under the law.

If Jesus failed the first test, His position would be less and less tenable till the LAST TEST, where He had more of an appeal to the lusts of the fallen human nature that anyone ever did. This is not saying Jesus possessed the fallen human nature. It is merely stating the stakes of the battle. Those who are fallen are the ones to be redeemed.

It did not break any rule for God to provide sustenance to the victor after He had endured and triumphed. Whether the LORD's body was overweight when He began this fast, or not, is not as important as, that He endured. His victory here meant He did not need to make any apology as He answered accusations for the remainder of His days here.

We are not completely aware of all the moral, legal, and otherwise spiritual battles that go on between God the Father and His enemy!

Job 1
6 ¶ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
​

In these battles, the enemy may not always play by rules that were set forth in the beginning, but the victor will have no cause to apologize for His methods and conduct. His legal footing is uncompromised.

It truly is not a fair fight, but the victor has a firm stance on immovable ground. The enemy is an enemy SPECIFICALLY because he does not follow the rules from the outset.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I take it you are aware that there would be prophecies which Jesus believed applied specifically to himself, and one's he would commit to trusting that the outcome would be for our benefit.

He certainly doesn't strike me as one who was driven by his base nature. He maintained that he was doing all this for us.

Well, the people who mythologised the story of the man on whom the gospels were based must have had to do a fair bit of shoehorning in of the prophecies. In fact, Christopher Hitchens considered the terrible job they did of trying to make the life fit in with the prophecies as a genuine bit of evidence that the jesus story is based on a real person. And if we actually went back in a time machine and spoke to the real person himself and asked him about it, he'd probably wonder what the hell we were talking about. But anyway, that's all rather after the fact.

The thing is that god had the whole pretend suicide thing planned out beforehand, did he not?

 

[Avid]

Rainwater would run down to the sea. The flood waters came up from the sea.

The canopy was not condensed till the flood event, so it would be invisible. The water from below actually came from the FOUNTAINS of the deep being broken up.

The oceans are fed by rain above and fountains beneath, even now. Some deep sea fountains are extremely hot., and they warm the extreme depths of the ocean to the point where LIFE is growing in their vicinity MILES below the surface.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well, the people who mythologised the story of the man on whom the gospels were based must have had to do a fair bit of shoehorning in of the prophecies. In fact, Christopher Hitchens considered the terrible job they did of trying to make the life fit in with the prophecies as a genuine bit of evidence that the jesus story is based on a real person. And if we actually went back in a time machine and spoke to the real person himself and asked him about it, he'd probably wonder what the hell we were talking about. But anyway, that's all rather after the fact.

The thing is that god had the whole pretend suicide thing planned out beforehand, did he not?

I don't have an inflated idea of Jesus.
As the real-real, he was a straight shooter.

I never met Hitchens, but from the way people responded at his parting he must have been a fine bloke. However, having listened to him in debate mode his Bible knowledge was often way of course, much like most popularizers he played his little drum for the applause.

Jesus in person is definitely better than what was written about him.
In fact, I'd say that you don't wanna read the book and miss taking it to the next step.

On the subject of love.