LOT of ASSES in the days of Noah and Lot.

Friends,

People tend to see what they want to see in the scriptures. While they read about Noah or Lot in an "end time" passage of the new testament, they ignore what is stated in the immediate context and rush to Genesis 6 or 19 to substantiate their presuppositions.

Matthew 24:37-40 King James Version (KJV)

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Is there a word about Nephilim? NO. Is there a word about homosexuality? NO! It is all about people being preoccupied in their day to day affairs. But, that won't suit the agenda of doomsday prophets, so they have to brew up some scary, repulsive story about Nephilim, Anakim and all those nonsense.

Coming to Lot.

Futurists and homophobes want something to fit their agenda. So, they took a few words from Jesus, "As in the days of Lot", ignoring what our Lord told in the immediate context:

Luke 17:28-37 King James Version (KJV)

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Did Jesus say a word about homosexuality? Are planting and building activities done by homosexuals alone? Don't heterosexuals eat and drink?

Frankly, hatemongers misuse Scriptures to perpetrate their agenda, they have no love of Christ in them. Their love for Jesus is just a lip service.

In Christ, 

Tomsan Kattackal

For whose sins did Jesus die?

Friends,

You are cautioned that this post may be termed as “controversial”, “heretical”, “blasphemous” … and so on.

We keep seeing memes that say: “speak the truth even if your voice shakes”, but, unfortunately, many do not do much beyond lip service to the truth. I am sure this post would offend many and portions of it would be quoted out of context to prove that it is a false teaching. It may even be claimed that this post promote sinful living.

It is a harsh fact that most of the Christians do write themselves into the Bible, especially so, while it comes to blessings and positive things. Whenever first person pronouns like: I, me, my, mine, we, our, ours, and us appear in the scriptures, if they point to human beings and have no negative connotations, the tendency is to (mis)appropriate them.

Haven't you seen Christians thumping their chest and screaming “Jesus died for my sins” or “Jesus died for our sins”? Ask them for scriptures and I am sure that they will point to passages like:

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 

Now, the first assumption is that these scriptures are written to us, who live in the 21^st century and beyond and have nothing to do with the first century Christians of Judea, Corinth or Galatia.

What were your sins at the time (circa 33 AD) Jesus died for your sins?

This is a question Christian theologians had to answer. So, St. Augustine (a Roman Catholic priest) came up with a solution named original sin. They found passages like Rom 5:12 to be supporting this view. Since Adam sinned all became sinners, no matter whether one has committed sin or not, no matter one is capable of committing sin or not (example: those who are born mentally challenged and stillborn kids). Later on, Calvinists made the Protestant version of the same theory and named it as total depravity.

If the theory is correct, one simple act of Adam (eating a fruit) is of immediate, lasting and far-reaching consequence than the sacrifice of Jesus Christ! You can make a theology out of any scripture that is taken out of its context. For instance, Rom 5:12, when read in context, gives a totally different picture than the one portrayed by the theories of original sin and total depravity. Please read the following passage, focusing on each of the capitalized words:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon ALL MEN, for that ALL have sinned:

...

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of ONE MANY be dead, MUCH more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by ONE MAN, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto MANY.

Rom 5:16 And not as it was by ONE that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by ONE to condemnation, but the free gift is of MANY offences unto justification.

Rom 5:17 For if by ONE man's offence death reigned by ONE; MUCH more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by ONE, Jesus Christ.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of ONE judgment came upon ALL MEN to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of ONE the free gift came upon ALL MEN unto justification of life.

Rom 5:19 For as by ONE MAN’s disobedience MANY were made sinners, so by the obedience of ONE shall MANY be made righteous.

If Adam's offense made MANY as sinners, Jesus's righteousness made AS MANY as righteous. If Adam's disobedience made ALL MEN as sinners, Jesus' obedience made ALL MEN as righteous. Jesus' obedience and righteousness has completely and comprehensively undone the damage caused by Adam's disobedience. There is none excluded from being justified. In the context there is no difference between MANY and ALL.

Jesus' one act of obedience and righteousness has completely and comprehensively undone Adam's one act of disobedience.

In simpler terms: you are not born with original sin. You are not born in total depravity. Adamic sin is not in you. Jesus did not die for the sins you have actually, personally committed. You were born 19, 20 or more centuries after Jesus took away sins.

You were in the loins of Adam while he committed his offense, so, you inherited Adamic sin. While Jesus undid or reversed what Adam did, you ceased to be in the loins anyone with sin in them.

Sins that are not imputed.

We have come across some sins being classified as cardinal sins or deadly sins. How often do we hear about sins that are not imputed to the sinner?

You may have noticed that we have not covered Rom 5:13, 14 in the previous section. Let us see what those scriptures tell us about sin.

Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Read the passage a few times, till you grasp the power of it.

• Sin was in the world, even before the Law came.
• But, sin is not imputed to (OR put in the account of - Phm 1:18) the sinner when there is no law.
• This is true, even if the sin was much more grievous than that of Adam.

So, all the sins that were committed from Adam till the time the Law was given is not imputed to the respective sinners. (Please do read the passage in various versions.)

If the sins are not imputed to the sinner, does it not mean that the Law is taken away?

According to Rom 5:13, sins should not be imputed to (put in the account of) the sinner if the Law is not in force. Though preachers who want to control you and fleece your money will say that the Law is still in force, a thorough study of the scriptures with proper application of common sense would prove that the Law is no more in force. For a short discussion on the topic, click here.

You are back to the state in which Adam was before his sinning is proved by the following passage:

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

It appears from the scriptures that trespasses are much more grievous than sins. By or through Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, without imputing their trespasses to them. So, our trespasses are not imputed to us. God has done act of reconciling the world to Himself, 2000± years back. So, your trespasses are not reckoned by God.

Just as the sins committed before the Law are not imputed to the respective sinners, the sins committed after God's reconciling the world to Himself is not imputed to the sinners. This implies that the Law is no more in force. It also implies that the sins of those whom the Law was not given also are not imputed to themselves.

Why does scriptures talk about “our sins”?

Thus far we have seen that sins are not imputed:

• those who existed before the Law was given - from Adam till Moses
• after God has reconciled the world to himself through Christ - everyone after Christ.
• everyone to whom the Law is not given.

This leaves behind only one group's sin that is imputed to themselves - those to whom the Law was given, Israelites or the Jews.

Please read the following scripture, carefully:

1Jn 2:2 And He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The author clearly differentiates between “our sins” and that of the rest of the world. Most of the readers write themselves into the Bible and conclude that they are part of the group mentioned as “our”.

Let us not forget that the authors of the New Testament were first century Jews. Let me suggest to you that while the authors of the New Testament used the term “our sins”, they meant the sins of their own people, Jews.

He shall save His people from their sins (Mat 1:21)

Ask a typical Christian who “His people” are, and it is more than likely their answer would be: Christians or those who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. If you ask them who are “His own” in John 1:11, they will say it is the Jews. Double standards, Eh?

Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

If His own people are the Jews, His people are also Jews, there are no two ways about it.

For whom was Jesus sent?

In Jesus's own words: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mat 15:24)

You may say that you are spiritual Israel of God, but you do not qualify as the house of Israel, as we have discussed elsewhere.

For whose transgression did Jesus die?

Read this scripture, carefully:

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Read again and again, till you have grasped the power of the scripture: the death of Jesus was for the redemption of transgressions under the Old Covenant. Let me show you the same passage from a few more versions:

[ASV] Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

[Darby] Heb 9:15 And for this reason he is mediator of a new covenant, so that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, the called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Another passage:

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons...

There are two different groups of people mentioned here:

• Those who are to be redeemed (those who were under the law)
• Those who have to receive adoption as sons.

The adoption as sons of the second group is consequent to the redemption of those who were under the Law or the Old Covenant. The fact that we have received the adoption, which entitles us to call God as Abba, Father (Gal 4:6), is the proof that they have obtained redemption.

Some may object that the entire Israel has not obtained redemption, based on their understanding of Rom 11:26. Since it is beyond the scope of this post, I restrain myself by quoting Paul: "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). If it be the will of God, we will write study that topic at a later date.

Conclusions:

• Though not highlighted by theologians and preachers, Jesus' death was for the sins under the Old Covenant.
• By the death of Jesus, He redeemed those who were under law and undid the damage caused by Adam.
• With Jesus' death you ceased to be under Adamic sin, or original sin.
• Your sins are not imputed to you anymore.

Finally, my incompetence as a writer will no way affect the scriptural truth that is stated. If anyone thinks that sins not being imputed to themselves as the license to sin, it is their lack of understanding of the love of God.

In Christ,

Tomsan Kattackal

Is the Law of Moses in force even now?

Friends,

Many Christian preachers insist that only the ceremonial laws in the Law of Moses is taken away, and the rest of it is in force. By the expression "ceremonial law", I think, they mean the laws and ordinances related to sacrifices, circumcision, priesthood and so on. They insist that the moral laws are not taken away.

Moral Laws:

Let us encounter a Christian who says that the moral laws of Moses still in force, and ask him: Will you stone your daughter to death if your son-in-law comes to you complaining that your daughter was not a virgin while you gave her in marriage to him? No man in his sanity will stone his daughter to death, even if she were not a virgin, as alleged by her husband. If the moral laws of Moses were in force, is he not bound to obey it? (Deut 22:13-23)

How about civil laws?

If your neighbor's violent ox or bull attacks you and you are injured, will you ensure that your neighbor is put to death? (Exo 21:29)

Cherry Picking?

One may argue that I have been cherry picking in choosing the examples above. Yes, cherry picking is bad. Even while Jesus was talking about the fulfillment of the law did not allow cherry picking:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

According to a vast majority of Christians, ceremonial laws and food restrictions are no more valid.

• Avoiding duplicates, there are 613 commandments in the Law of Moses, as approved by Jewish scholars.
• Of these, many are related to sacrifices, priesthood, festivals and offerings (35%). None of these are valid now, as there is no temple and hence no priesthood.
• Dietary restrictions and ritual purity (men & women with discharges) are not even followed by the defenders of the Law.
• Of the 613 commandments at least 510 are no more applicable, that is a whopping 83.20%

I am sure that you will agree with me that 83.20% is not just a jot or a tittle (iota or dot). If you say that certain portions of the Law has passed away and certain others have not, you are contradicting the statement of Jesus, whom you are supposed to follow and whom you esteem as Son of God or even God!

Answering objections.

While I say the Law of Moses is taken away, the first question would be: Does that mean we can murder or rape? Those who ask such questions assume that without the Law of Moses there would have been all around murder and rape. If the Law of Moses or the Bible serves as a deterrent to crime, why Americas top the list of murders per 100,000 inhabitants with 16.3, whereas Asia, where 60.02% of the world population lives and the presence of Christianity and the Bible is minimal is at the bottom of the list, with 2.9?

Another question is: if the law has passed away, has the heaven and earth passed away? Those who raise this question look forward to the passing away of the physical heaven and earth to pass away. If we study Deut 31:25-28, we can find that the expression "heaven and earth" stands for the Law itself.

Deu 31:25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD,

Deu 31:26 "Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.

Deu 31:27 For I know how rebellious and stubborn you are. Behold, even today while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the LORD. How much more after my death!

Deu 31:28 Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears and call heaven and earth to witness against them.

In verse 26, it is the Law that is to witness against the children of Israel. While it came to verse 28, Moses says he will call heaven and the earth as witnesses against them. Here Moses is equating the Law with heaven and earth. The physical heaven and earth will never pass away. We need to let God, Jesus, Moses and other authors of the Bible to speak figurative language.

In Christ,

Tomsan Kattackal

If the Lamb's wedding supper is over, where's the Biriyani? Part #1

Friends,

If you are an Asian, I need not to tell you that Biriyani is the main course in an Asian wedding feast. If you are not an Asian, may reframe the above question with the most desired dish / drink in your wedding feasts.

While we who believe in Fulfilled Eschatology tell people that the prophecies in the book of Revelation is fulfilled, they ask us: "Is it? If the wedding supper of the Lamb is done, when was it? Where was it?" What they look forward to is a literal wedding and a literal wedding supper, where they are the bride. To put it as kindly as I can, they are writing themselves into the Bible, as we will see soon.

You are cautioned that there may be certain points in this post that may vary from your closely held beliefs. Honestly, in the course of writing this post I had to reconsider and reevaluate a few things that I believed in.

When was the Lamb's wedding supper?

Unless one can convincingly prove that the marriage feast narrated in the parable of The Great Banquet in Matt 22:1-14 is not about the Lamb and His bride, we have the answer to the question: When was the marriage feast? I am sure you have read the passage several times, this time around, read it a bit more carefully.

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

Mat 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. 

Mat 22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my failings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. 

Mat 22:5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: 

Mat 22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. 

Mat 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and BURNED UP THEIR CITY. 

Mat 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. 

Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. 

Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. 

Almost every reputed Biblical commentator (irrespective of their theological and eschatological leanings) is convinced that Mat 22:7 is about the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem by Roman armies. The Roman armies are equated to God's ("his") armies, just as Assyrian armies were termed as the rod of God's anger in Isa 10:5.

Let us step back from Mat 22:7 and observe what is stated in Mat 22:4: "I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my failings are killed, and all things are ready". If Mat 22:7 is about the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, is it not abundantly clear that the dinner was ready even before 70 AD?

After the dwellers of the city were annihilated for refusing to be partakers in the wedding feast, the king instructed his servants to go to the highways and invite as many as they find to the wedding feast. Please do note that they are invited to be guests (the wedding was furnished with guests - Mat 22:10). Is it not self-evident that the guests cannot be the bride? Logically, even those dwellers of the city, who refused to partake in the wedding feast, were invited to be guests and not to be the bride. If it were the bride who backed out of the wedding, the wedding feast itself should have been called off, instead of looking for an alternative bride.

One may argue that the destruction of the city appears only in the gospel of Matthew and not in the parallel passage in Luk 14:14-24. They argue that everything has to be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If this precept has universal application, then the gospel of John, which has 92% dissimilarity with the rest of the gospels, should not be there in the Bible at all. There are incidents and details in the gospel of Mark (supposed to be the most accurate of synoptic gospels) which are not found in the other synoptic gospels.

Another strong argument against this conclusion could be: the destruction of the city has to happen in the future. This thought is based on the understanding that passages like Zechariah 12 to 14 have to take place in the future. A careful analysis of the passages reveals how anachronistic the thought is.

So, any study of the bride of the Lamb has to be based on the inalienable truth that the bride was ready before the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem.

New Jerusalem coming down from heaven.

A proper understanding of Heb 12:22 tells us that the New or Heavenly Jerusalem has been here since the first century. If we analyze Rev 21, we see the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven.

Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 

Later in the chapter we see the following statements regarding gentiles (nations):

Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it [bride, New Jerusalem]: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 

Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 

Rev 21:26 And they [kings of the earth] shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 

We (present believers in Christ) are not the bride, we are the ones who walk in the light of it. (vs 24) We are the kings of the earth (Rev 1:5) who enter through the gates of the city, bringing the glory and honor of the nations to it.

New/Heavenly Jerusalem is the New Covenant.

Please do read the following passage, with me:

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 

Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 

Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 

Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 

Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. 

New/Heavenly (from above) Jerusalem stands for the New Covenant and we are children to the New Covenant. We are not the bride.

How about Ephesians 5?

Ephesians 5 is one chapter where the words wife, body and church appear together. Apart from comparing the relation between a man and his wife with the relation between Christ and his church, the passage does not say that the church is the wife or bride of Christ. On the contrary, it affirms that the church is the body of Christ.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 

Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 

Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 

Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 

☞ Chances are that you have a Bible translation which has her instead of it in Eph 5:25-27. The Greek word used is G846, (αὐτός, autos) which may be translated as any of the third person pronouns (he, she, it, his, hers, him, her, they, them and their.) Even in the same passage the words rendered as he (for husband and Christ) are the renditions of the same Greek word.

For the sake of completeness, 1Cor 12:12-31 also depicts the church as the members of the body of Christ.

to be continued in part #2,

In Christ,

Tomsan Kattackal

Satan Myth: Evil Spirits, Unclean Spirits and King Saul's case of Bipolar Disorder

Friends, 

This issue covers the topic of evil spirits and unclean spirits. All the scripture citations are from KJV, unless specified.

Evil / unclean spirits in the Old Testament.

You may be familiar with narrative of King Saul being troubled by an evil spirit, but that is not the first time evil spirit is mentioned in the Bible.

Jdg 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

One may argue that the word "God", H430 in Strong's lexicon, may even be "fallen angels" or one of the gods of the gentiles. This argument cannot stand scriptural scrutiny as God and LORD are used interchangeably in the narrative about King Saul.

1Sa 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

1Sa 16:15 And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

1Sa 16:16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well. 

1Sa 16:23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him. 

1Sa 18:10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand. 

1Sa 19:9 And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.

Evil spirits are not mentioned anywhere else in the Old Testament. It is unambiguously stated that the evil spirit is sent by the LORD (Jehovah) God (Elohim). Though he was not always violent, King Saul chased David for 15 to 20 years!

The only instance where "unclean spirit" is mentioned in the Old Testament is in Zechariah 13^th chapter.

Zec 13:2 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land. 

There is no mention about the source of the unclean spirit.

Did King Saul suffer from Bipolar Disorder?

I am not a man of science or psychiatry, but the behavioral changes of King Saul makes one to wonder whether he suffered from stress, depression or even bipolar disorder. Whenever the so-called evil spirit from God is upon him, if someone played music to him, he is comforted.

1Sa 16:23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

During the 15 to 20 years of Saul pursuing David, as though David were a dog (1Sa 24:14), there were occasions when Saul spoke and behaved endearingly with David.

1Sa 26:17 Saul knew David's voice, and said, Is this thy voice, my son David?...

Such behavioral changes and violent outbursts would make one to wonder whether his was not a case of some kind of mental disorder like bipolar disorder. Please note that whenever music was played to him, the evil spirit used to depart from him. Even these days, music is used to comfort those who are suffering from stress, depression and bipolar disorder.

Continued...

In Christ,

Tomsan Kattackal

Was Jesus really tested by Satan? - Part #4. Never underestimate the power of human beings to tempt Almighty God!

Friends,

This is part #4 of the series on "Was Jesus really tested by Satan?". If you haven't read the previous posts, you may read them here: #1, #2, #3.

In this post we look at one of the three tests/temptations faced by Jesus - the one about turning stones to bread.

Never underestimate human beings, they have the history of tempting Almighty God!

According a vast majority of Christians, Satan, apparently a spirit being, had to manifest or incarnate himself in order to test or tempt Jesus, the son of God. But, while Israel had to tempt the Almighty God, they could do it most efficiently, without the assistance of a celestial monster called Satan!

Heb 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 

Heb 3:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. (See also: Exo 17:7)

It is not just once that human beings, specifically the children of Israel, tempted the Almighty God!

Num 14:22 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; 

Remember, this feat of tempting the Almighty God for ten times was accomplished in less than 20 years! (According to scholars, Numbers 14^th chapter is about the events that occurred circa 1472 BC. Israel's coming out of Egypt occurred circa 1491 BC). We do not know how many times more they tempted the Almighty God before entering into Canaan!

Israel could tempt the Almighty God, who is a spirit being dwelling in spiritual realm, without any assistance. Given this, is it not logical to ask whether it takes some celestial monster called Satan to test Jesus who was on earth, in the flesh?

Temptation to turn stones to bread. (Matt 4:3)

The congregation to which I belonged used to conduct spiritual conventions periodically. People would come to these conventions after having sumptuous breakfasts and would be listening to the spiritual messages in all earnestness. Around 12 noon, the aroma of Chicken Biriyani (that is being prepared for lunch in the nearby kitchen) floating in the air would start entering their nostrils. Gradually, their attention ceases to be with the preacher. By 12:30 PM, their minds would be seething along with the pieces of chicken in the huge cauldron in which the Biriyani is prepared.

It may not have been 3 hours since these people had their breakfasts. But the weakness of their flesh, as they say, tempted them. This being the case, does it really take a Satan to tempt Jesus, who has been starving for several days? Remember, He was the Son of Almighty God, vested with the Holy Spirit without measure. Is it unlikely that He was aware of the fact that He could accomplish anything He desires? It was He who increased 5 breads into 5,000, and raised the dead. It is fairly simple for him to turn stones to bread.

Assume for a moment that you are an official holding a very high position in a financially sound organisation. You have some urgent need for a large amount of money. You can always take the required amount from the organisations funds, with none to question you and without letting anyone know about it. But it takes a firm determination not to fall into such temptations.

It is hard to overcome the temptation to utilize the powers that one has in a wrongful way. No wonder, it stated thrice in the 2^nd and 3^rd chapters of Revelation that great rewards are kept in store for those who overcome. (Rev 2:7, 17; 3:21)

It is not just Satan who tested Jesus regarding bread.

If you analyze the books of Moses, several times did Israel test or tempt God regarding food and water. In the New Testament, Jews tested / tempted Jesus regarding bread:

Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 

Instead of asking Jesus to give them bread from heaven, the hinted to Jehovah dropping Manna from heaven.

The tempter:

Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 

It is said that Jesus was in all points tempted like us (Heb 4:15). While you were tempted, did a celestial monster called Satan come and stand before you? Apart from Satan, did none else know that Jesus is the Son of God? Is it unlikely that someone among those who heard the voice that came from heaven at the time Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (Mat 3:17) met Him in the wilderness and challenged Him with the above statement?

A similar scripture, these are the words of Jews who were passing by, while Jesus was on the cross.

Mat 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

If a bunch of men could challenge Jesus using the expression: "If thou be the Son of God", does it really take a Satan to raise the question in Mat 4:3?

Let us examine another scripture that uses the Greek word (peirazō, G3985 in Strong's) that is translated as tempter in Mat 4:3.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted [G3985], when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 

Every man (be it, you, me or Jesus) is tempted by ones own lusts (desires). If you are tempted by your own desires, so was Jesus, who was in every point tempted like you.

Conclusions:

• Human beings have the history of testing even the Almighty God, so, the Son of God also could have been tempted by human beings.
• Jesus was tempted in every point like us. If an entity named Satan does not come and stand before us, it is not necessary that an entity named Satan stood in front of Jesus.
• Everyone is tempted by his/her own desires.

to be continued in Part #5...

In Christ,

Tomsan Kattackal

Was Jesus really tested by Satan? - Part #3. Double Devil, Double Impact!

Friends,

This is Part #3 in the series "Was Jesus really tested by Satan?". If you haven't read Part #1 and #2, please do read them before reading this one. This is a quick and short one.

There are quite a few Greek words translated as Devil in the New Testament, of these only one, diabolos (G1228 in Strong's) is the exact equivalent of Satan in Hebrew. See the post "Greek words (mis)translated as Satan/Devil in the New Testament" for details.

Jesus' definition of the word Satan.

On hearing the names Satan or Devil many visualize an entity or a person with fearsome looks, forked tail and tongue, fiery eyes, and holding a trident. This kind of imagery has nothing to do with the scriptures.

Once Jesus and His disciples were proceeding to Jerusalem. He told them how would be persecuted and executed by the Jewish religious leaders. Please note how Apostle Peter responded and how Jesus castigated him:

Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

As we all know, Peter did not sprout a forked tail or horns, just because Jesus addressed him as Satan. In the same scripture, Jesus defines what it means to be Satan: not giving priority to the interests of God, or esteeming human interests above interests of God.

Simliarly, while it said that Satan entered Judas Iscariot, no one in their right mind would think that a fearsome celestial being with forked tongue and forked tongue entered through some of the openings in Judas' anatomy.

Luk 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. 

 All that the expression 'Satan entered into Judas' means is that human interests got the best of him.

Double Devil, Double Impact!

Have you noticed something about Judas Iscariot? Well before Judas Iscariot's betrayal, Jesus said of him:

Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? (G1228: diabolos, the exact equivalent of Satan.)

Jesus did not say, one of you is like a devil, instead, He said: one of you is a devil. So, Judas was a devil right from the beginning, and at the time of his betrayal of Jesus, Satan entered him.

Jesus statement that Judas was a devil implies he is a carnal man, having human thinking. At the time of his betrayal of Jesus Christ, his human thinking manifested in the form of greed.

to be continued in Part #4 ...

In Christ,

Tomsan Kattackal

Greek words (mis)translated as Satan/Devil in the New Testament.

Friends,

This is part #2, in a two part series on words that are (mis)translated as Satan/Devil. If you haven't read the first part, please do read it now.

The Words correctly translated as Satan/Devil in the New Testament

There are only 2 mutually related words translated as Satan in the New Testament (NT), Though there are quite a few words translated as Devil in the NT, most of them have nothing to do with Satan or the adversary, as we will see.

Of the two words translated as Satan, Σατᾶν (Satan, G4566 in Strong's) is used only once in 2Co 12:7 and is a derivative of Σατανᾶς (Satanas, G4567 in Strong's), which is used 36 times in the NT. Satanas (G4567) is a derivative of the Hebrew word Shaitan H7854) which we have seen in part #1.

The Greek word διάβολος (diabolos, G1228 in Strong's) is the exact equivalent of Satanas (G4567), as can be proved by the interchangable use of these words in the scriptures.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil [G1228].
Mar 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan [G4567]; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Devils that are NOT.

There are a bunch of other words which are translated as devil or devils in the NT. Though these words are interrelated, they are not at all related to the words we have seen in the previous section.

Greek Word	Strong's #	Derived From Strong's	Pronunciation
δαίμων	G1142		daimōn
δαιμονιώδης	G1141	G1140, G1142	daimoniōdēs
δαιμόνιον	G1140	G1142	daimonion
δαιμονίζομαι	G1139	G1142	daimonizomai

As we may observe from the table above, the base word is G1142, daimōn, which is generally spelled as demon or daemon in English. Many modern translations render these words as demon, demons or demoniac(s) - example: English Standard Version and Young's Literal Translation.

As we have seen in the case of the boy who was possessed by a dumb spirit, if a so-called devil possession can be surgically cured, then it is not from Satan / Devil. If an ailment that can be cured psychiatrically, as in the case of the woman who was supposedly bound by Satan for 18 years, then also, it is not from Satan / Devil. If Devil could be driven into a drove of swines, as in the case of LEGION, there was no need for the only begotten Son of God to die to defeat Devil. (Heb 2:14)

The point is: while we read about Jesus and disciples healing people of daimōn (demon), but there is no reference of anyone being cured of the possession by Satanas OR diabolos. (Please, we are talking about the Greek words involved and not what we get to read in the Kings James Bible.)

The interesting etymology of demon.

Etymology is the study of the history of words or the study of the sources and development of words. The etymology of the word demon is really interesting.

demon (n.) From etymology.com: (abridgment and emphasis is mine, click on the link for full text.)

c. 1200, from Latin daemon "spirit," from Greek daimon "deity, divine power; lesser god; guiding spirit, tutelary deity" (sometimes including souls of the dead); "one's genius, lot, or fortune;" from PIE *dai-mon- "divider, provider" (of fortunes or destinies), from root *da- "to divide" (see tide (n.)). ... The original mythological sense is sometimes written daemon for purposes of distinction. The Demon of Socrates was a daimonion, a "divine principle or inward oracle." His accusers, and later the Church Fathers, however, represented this otherwise. The Demon Star (1895) is Algol.

Demon From Wikipedia: (abridgment and emphasis is mine, click on the link for full text.)

The Ancient Greek word δαίμων daimōn denotes a spirit or divine power, much like the Latin genius or numen. Daimōn most likely came from the Greek verb daiesthai (to divide, distribute). The Greek conception of a daimōns notably appears in the works of Plato, where it describes the divine inspiration of Socrates. To distinguish the classical Greek concept from its later Christian interpretation, the former is anglicized as either daemon or daimon rather than demon. ... The Greek terms do not have any connotations of evil or malevolence. In fact, εὐδαιμονία eudaimonia, (literally good-spiritedness) means happiness. By the early Roman Empire, cult statues were seen, by pagans and their Christian neighbors alike, as inhabited by the numinous presence of the gods: "Like pagans, Christians still sensed and saw the gods and their power, and as something, they had to assume, lay behind it, by an easy traditional shift of opinion they turned these pagan daimones into malevolent 'demons', the troupe of Satan...

Is it not interesting that the word demon originally meant deity (god), divine power, divine principle, intellect, genius, and happiness?

Please note the last sentence of Wikipedia's definition. Let me explain in simpler terms. I am a Christian who believes in One True God. My neighbors are Hindus and Muslims. Quite often I pray to my God for various favors. Often I am heard, and many times my prayers are not answered. My Hindu neighbor prays to his idols. My Muslim neighbor prays to his (what Christians call as) false god. Their respective prayers are sometimes heard, someimes remain unanswered. Very often they get their things done, whereas I lose hope because my prayers are unanswered. There should be a way to explain this situation. So, Christian theologians and church fathers decided that the prayers of the non Christians are answered by Satan or Satan's minions. This is how the word demon, which had meanings like divine power, genius and intellect came to mean something evil. It was the Church fathers who gave the word a negative connotation.

One may ask me: what about all those demon possessed people, Tomsan? In the other posts on this blog we have seen that most of these cases of demon possession were mental or neurological disorders like epilepsy, schizophrenia and conversion disorder. All these have to do with the mind, brain or intellect of a person. In other words, they have to do with the daimōn (in its original meaning) of a person.

In Christ,
Tomsan Kattackal

Hebrew Words (mis)translated as Satan/Devil in the Old Testament.

Friends,

This is part #1 in a two part series on the words that are translated as Satan/Devil. In this post we will see every individual Hebrew word translated as Satan/Devil. Please note that all the scripture citations are from the King James Version (KJV), unless specified otherwise.

There are three Hebrew words translated as Satan or Devil. Of these the most popular one is שָׂטָן, pronounced as Shaitan or saw-tawn, H7854 in Strong's lexicon. Strong's lexicon says it means the arch enemy of God when it is prefixed with the definite article (Hebrew letter namded Ha). We have disproved this theory in the post: If HaSatan (HaSawtawn) is a proper name, why HaBarber, HaTreasurer, HaQueen and HaAstrologer cannot be? The theory is proven false by KJV's rendering the word as Satan in 1Chr 21:1, though it is not prefixed with the definite article.

The word simply means an adversary or an enemy.

• Num 22:22 And God's anger was kindled because he [Balaam] went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary [H7854] against him...
  
• 2Sa 19:22 And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries [H7854] unto me?...
• 1Ki 5:4 [Solomon says] But now the LORD my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary [H7854] nor evil occurrent.
  
• 1Ki 11:14 And the LORD stirred up an adversary [H7854] unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom. 
• 1Ki 11:23 And God stirred him up another adversary [H7854], Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: 

Devil #2, שֵׁד, shêd, H7700 in Strong's

This word is used only twice in the Old Testament:

Deu 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils [H7700], not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

Psa 106:37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils [H7700],

Strong's lexicon tells us that this word is derived from another word, H7736 in Strong's. H7736 is used only once in the Old Testament:

Psa 91:6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth [H7736] at noonday.

Psa 91:6 (YLT) Of pestilence in thick darkness that walketh, Of destruction that destroyeth [H7736] at noon,

Psa 91:6 (ESV)  nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the destruction that wastes [H7736] at noonday.

In short, there is nothing to prove that the word indicated by H7700 is about Devil, it could as well be destruction or wasteness.

Devil #3, שָׂעִר  שָׂעִיר, śâ‛ı̂yr śâ‛ir, H8163 in Strong's. Is Devil or just a lamb?

This word is used 59 times in the Old Testament. Of these just 2 times as devils. We can see it translated as hairy while describing the appearence of Esau:

Gen 27:11 And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy [H8163] man, and I am a smooth man:

Gen 27:23 And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy [H8163], as his brother Esau's hands: so he blessed him.

Probably, Esau had hair like a lamb and that's why Rebecca covered Jacob's hand's shoulders with the skins of the kids of the goats  (Gen 27:16)

If the word indicated by H8163 indeed has the meaning of devil, imagine the chiefs of the 12 tribes of Israel bringing devils to the tabernacle!

Num 7:16 One kid [H8163] of the goats for a sin offering:

Num 7:22 One kid [H8163] of the goats for a sin offering:

Num 7:28 One kid [H8163] of the goats for a sin offering:

Num 7:34 One kid [H8163] of the goats for a sin offering:

Num 7:40 One kid [H8163] of the goats for a sin offering:

Now, all of a sudden, kid or lamb becomes devil!

Lev 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils [H8163], after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.

2Ch 11:15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils [H8163], and for the calves which he had made.

How did this happen? Please read 2Ch 11:25, again. It is about worshiping animals, lambs and calves - which he [Jeroboam] had made. It was a case of worshiping idols of animals, as Israel did, while Moses was absent. Please read the same scripture from Young' Literal Translation:

2Ch 11:15 and he establisheth to him priests for high places, and for goats, and for calves, that he made. (YLT)

to be continued in part #2,
in Christ,
Tomsan Kattackal

Was Jesus really tested by Satan? - Part #2 - some of the impossibilities.

Friends,


This is Part #2 in the series "Was Jesus really tested by Satan?". If you haven't read Part #1, please do read it before reading this one.

Can someone who was fasting for 40 days walk 90 miles and climb up a hill?

The wilderness to which Jesus was led by the spirit immediately after He was baptized by John the Baptist is nearly 20 miles (32 kms) to the south of Galilee. The tallest mountain in the vicinity of Israel is Mount Hermon which has a height of 1.75 miles (2.8 kms). The distance between Jerusalem and Mount Hermon is about 70 miles (113 kms). The approximate distance between the wilderness and Mount Hermon is about 90 miles (145 kms).


Given that there were no buses or trains during the days of Jesus, is it possible for someone who has been fasting for 40 days to walk 90 miles (145 kms) and climb up a mount that is 1.75 miles (2.8 kms) high?

Please note the plight of someone who was starving for just 3 days:

1Sa 30:11 And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David, and gave him bread, and he did eat; and they made him drink water;

1Sa 30:12 And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins: and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights

The spirit of that Egyptian, who has been starving for just three days, came back to him only after eating and drinking what the servants of David served him. Just imagine the plight of Jesus who has been starving for 40 days!

Did Jesus return to Galilee while he was still fasting? NO.

Mat 4:11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

As can be seen from other parts of the scriptures, angels ministered unto him implies that the angels gave Him water to drink and food to eat. (See Mar 1:31; Luk 4:39...)

Where was the temple? Was it in Jerusalem OR in the wilderness?

It is said that Jesus was tested in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. While He was in the wilderness, Satan took Him to the pinnacle of the temple in order to test Him:

Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

Luk 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, ...

Visualize this: while Osama Bin Laden was still alive, if someone found you walking through streets of your city or town, will anyone in your city/town ever forget it? Not merely you, they won't even spare your children and your grandchildren. Not merely that, you will always be watched by cops and law enforcement agencies.

Given such public attitude or sentiments, if Jesus did really move around the streets of Jerusalem with Satan (who is supposed to have a fearsome appearance) is it likely that His opponents would have kept quiet about such an event? (One may argue that Jesus was brought to the temple at night; but will the temple be opened during nights?) Was not Jesus having thousands and thousands of opponents, including Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes and Herodians? At the time of Jesus' trial, why none of them and even the false witnesses whom they brought came forward to accuse Jesus of moving around with Satan, if such a thing had taken place? (Mat 26:60, 61)

Ask these questions to your pastor / preacher and I am sure they will tell you that these things did not take place literally. I also say the same thing! If your pastor/preacher has discernment he/she will know that these thing did not take place, literally, but if they openly admit that truth, probably, they will lose their jobs!

Satan's suggestion to turn stones to bread.

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

If someone undertakes fasting, he/she will have unbearable hunger on the the first two, three days. After 10 to 15 days hunger would subside. After 20 days there won't be hunger at all. It would be extremely unhealthy and even hazardous to start consuming solid food after fasting for 40 days. For this reason, those who break their fast, would do so by consuming moderate amounts of fruit juices.

It is not that easy for Satan to tempt Jesus (who was wiser than Solomon and was bestowed with the Holy Spirit without measure) after He has fasted for 40 days. If Satan had to tempt Jesus, it had to be done during the first few days of His fasting.

Did not Satan tempt Jesus after those 40 days in the wilderness?

Most of the preachers would say that Satan did not tempt Jesus after those 40 days. Let us see what the scriptures say:

Luk 4:13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

While it is said 'he departed from him for a season', does it not imply that Satan did not leave Jesus once for all?

to be continued in part #3...
In Christ,
Tomsan Kattackal

Was Jesus really tested by Satan? Part #1, Jesus was tested in ALL points like you.

Friends,


The moment we tell someone that there is no being or entity called Satan, their immediate response would be: Was not Jesus tested by Satan? If it be the good pleasure of Our Heavenly Father, this series will answer the question and many more.

After He was baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness to be tested by Satan.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

It was the Holy Spirit which brought him back from the wilderness.

Luk 4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee...

This implies that Jesus was under the protection of the Holy Spirit while he spent those 40 days in the wilderness. Is there anything to prove that the Holy Spirit deserted Him during those 40 days?

He was tested in all points like us...

Please read the following scripture carefully:

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

While it is said that Jesus was tested in all points like us, does it imply that while we were tested or tempted some celestial monster named Satan/Devil, with a forked tail, forked tongue and a sharp trident stood in front of us? In other words, Jesus did not face any test that you and me have not faced.

Where does the Holy Spirit guide you?

As we have seen above, it is written that the Holy Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tested by Satan/Devil. Where will the Holy Spirit guide or lead you? Does the scriptures say that the Holy Spirit will lead us to Satan/Devil?

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

If the Holy Spirit indeed led the Only Begotten Son of God into the wilderness to be tested by Satan, how can we be sure that it will not do the same to us? (That is, if the popular understanding of the testing of Jesus is correct.)

Was the Earth flat during the days of Jesus?

One of the three tests Jesus faced was:

Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Mat 3:13 tells us that Jesus went from Galilee to Jordan to be baptized by John and Mat 4:1 tells us that from Galilee Jesus was guided by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tested by Satan.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no high mountains in the vicinity of Israel which is as tall as Mount Everest of which the height is 14.16 kilometers or 8.8 miles. (The tiny red spot on the top left of the diagram represents Mount Everest). Mount Hermon has a height of 2.8 miles or 4.5 kilometers.

Knowing that the radius of the earth is 6371 kilometers (or 3958 miles) and the earth is a spheroid, is it possible that someone can see / show all the kingdoms of the world from atop a mountain, even if the mountain is as tall as Mount Everest?

Even if Satan took Jesus into outer space, it would not be possible to show all the kingdoms of the world “in a moment” (Luk 4:5), as Luke tells us, because earth is a spheroid. The only probable solution is that earth should have been flat or concave in shape during the days of Jesus! I am pretty sure, no educated human being would ever believe such nonsense.

I know, I know, my friend, you are about to tell me that the event /test is happened in “the spirit realm”. If the event happened in the spirit realm, why does the scriptures say that Jesus was in the wilderness near Galilee and he was taken to a high mountain? Does the Holy Spirit require human assistance make itself known plainly?

to be continued in Part #2
In Christ,
Tomsan Kattackal