Must be something in the water, ’cause there’s not a full moon tonight.

Jesus says in John 6:51 “I am the bread that came down from heaven” and also “the bread I will give is my flesh” which together means he came down from heaven already having his flesh.

Combine that with Matthew 11:11 “of those born of women, there is none greater than John” by which Jesus shows He Himself was not born of a woman, and with John 2:4 where a supposed mother character is told by Jesus “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” and Luke 11:28 where a woman who says “blessed are paps that you sucked” hears Jesus’ response “Nay rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it,” and Mark 3:32-35 where one says to Jesus that his mother is outside and he says “Who is my mother, or my brethren?” motioning that the crowd is, saying “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.”

Again, the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is about the virgin-born child being a sign of when Ahaz’ two enemy kings, Rezin and Pekkah son of Remaliah, the kings of Damascus and Samaria will be defeated, for the prophecy says in verse 16 “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.” And Isaiah 8 shows that Mahershalalhashbaz, a child virginally born of the prophetess, is the fulfillment, by Yahweh Himself saying “Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz, for before the child shall have knowledge to cry my father or my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away by the king of Assyria.” All the prophecies the Catholics have added to Matthew chapters 1 and 2 about Jesus’ birth are found to be taken out of context. Rachel weeping is about exile not death, for Yahweh says to Rachel in that prophecy, in Jeremiah 31:16-17 “Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.” Out of Egypt I have called my son is no prophecy but a historical statement concerning the Exodus, for it comes from Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” The Bethlehem birth prophecy is about a physical warrior to defend the land against Assyrian incursion, for Micah 5:5 says “And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land…” And of course, the prophecy cited in Matthew 2:23 “He shall be called a Nazarene,” doesn’t even exist in the OT.

The Catholics have corrupted our Bibles, all of them, with lies about Jesus’ birth. Jesus actually descended from Heaven already having his flesh. 1st John 4:2 says “he came in the flesh.” HE CAME IN THE FLESH; He was not born INTO the flesh. The word BECAME flesh. Mary was John Mark’s mother, not Jesus’ mother, and thus he says to John…

Jason C,

While the Greeks certainly did come up with the idea of a global earth, whether it had spread into the Hebrew conception of the world is an important one to consider. I don’t think we see any of that in the New Testament though.

Its entirely reasonable to believe that Matthew, raised as a Levite, would be familiar with the Old Testament’s conception of the universe and simply follow through with it in his gospel. I actually can’t think of any reason why he wouldn’t follow the beliefs of his culture.

Many of the Biblical authors viewed the world differently than we modern Westerners do. There’s no reason to believe their cosmology would reflect ours in any significant degree once you get out of their field of vision.

Its not that they are stupid, just ignorant of future advances in science. Just like we are.

If you want to look into this idea any further, do an internet search for John H. Walton, or read some of his recent books on Genesis. He really helps bring it all together.

Well, I don’t know Greek, but this reminds me of Daniel 2 and Nebuchadnezzar’s vision. The kingdoms throughout time are destroyed by a rock that becomes an huge mountain that filled the earth. Not to get all Christological with the OT or anything, but I think we agree that Jesus is that mountain, and He would inherit all the kingdoms of the earth.

So maybe the Father “led” Satan to take Jesus to the high mountain because Jesus as well as the Jews would have known that passage from Daniel, and it made a perfect context for Jesus, knowing the Scripture, to say to Satan in effect, “No deal, B’ub, I’m going to destroy both you and all the kingdoms of the earth and all of those who choose to bow down to you instead of the Father.”

So, I think it was a literal mountain but the “all kingdoms” part was a vision because there is no way to show all the kingdoms both *across all time* and *geographically* without a vision.

1166 deiknuw deiknuo dike-noo’-o

a prolonged form of an obsolete primary of the same meaning; TDNT-2:25,*; v

AV-show 31; 31

1) to show, expose to the eyes
2) metaph.
2a) to give evidence or proof of a thing
2b) to show by words or teach

From my online bible. The word “show” has metaphorical meanings that allow as little as telling someone about something.

Satan took Jesus to a high mountain and showed him the kingdoms of the world in an instant. I’d be inclined to go with “vision” as it’s much the same as me showing someone the town of New York with a power point presentation.

However going back to the question from #25, at that time was there a widespread belief in a flat Earth? Greek mathematicians had calculated the shape and size of the Earth about 2-300 years earlier. Had that knowledge become widespread at the time the gospels were written?

jeromy, this doesn’t provide evidence than Satan can put things into our head; but it does show that Jesus could see and speak to him, and he could “show” things to Jesus. That may involve visions that Jesus couldn’t distinguish from reality (which is what you’re implying), but it could also be dream sequences, or for that matter a PowerPoint show using an OLED monitor.

I think the Bible would have been a lot clearer on the issue if Satan could operate in the ways your friends feared, I’d expect.

At the same time, I’ve talked to missionaries and MKs who report a LOT more demonic activity in newly opened missionfields. Perhaps Satan’s kingdom is driven back by the Gospel when it’s proclaimed — there’s some evidence for that in the Bible.

-Wm

If one could see all the kingdoms from a mountain top then one would assume all the kingdoms would also be able to see the mountain top. Therefore I don’t believe the mountain should be taken too literally. A high place, yes, but not necessarily the highest place. I believe it all to be part of the visual effect (a high place) satin used in the temptation process.

If this is interpreted as a vision, it opens up the discussion of whether Satan has the power to put a vision into the mind of the Son of God, even if he IS in the flesh. I often wonder what Satan can put into the mind of believers, since the word tells us that, “A man is tempted when he is lured away of his own lust.” Does this mean that all Satan can do is put something before us that he has seen us succumb to before? I have had discussions with other believers that believe keeping a journal is just letting Satan read your thoughts. So the ultimate question for me is: what can Satan put into our heads and what can he take out?

So, is there any validity to my implied suggestion that a possible reason the devil shows the kingdoms and their glory to Jesus on a mountain was because it was also on a mountain that God – whom the devil opposed himself to, and who Jesus referenced in response to the devil’s temptations – showed Moses how He wanted Moses to build a place for God’s glory to dwell?

There is a consistent pattern of historical specificity in literal interpretation in the Bible. By this I mean that particular places and events are often specified in passages that are to be taken as “wooden literal”. When God would speak in a way that was to to have an allegorical or exclusively other-worldly sense, then there was less specificity. Matt 4:8 does not specify the particular mountain that Satan took Jesus. This would indicate a symbolic or spiritual interpretation in a way consistent with the principles of literal interpretation.

There is a certain amount of vagueness in this passage so I would not be dogmatic about this, but the most sensible interpretation for me is that the location is heavenly. The Bible speaks of a heavenly mountain (Psalm 24:3-4;Ezekiel 28:13-14;Heb 12:18-22;Rev 14:1 and others). They were on the “Mountain of God” looking down upon the earth.