Satan's Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ

Satan and His Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ

A personal relationship with Christ? How did this idea come about? Afer all, Jesus had defined himself as a Messiah. The idea was for him to become King of Kings. If not to believe Judaic prophecy, at least we could believe the prophecies of the Religious Cultures of the 3 Kings of the East who knew enough to pay homage to the infant Jesus, whom they regarded as the future King of Kings. Now, do we think of anybody having a ‘personal’ relationship with the King of Kings. Indeed, all of Christ’s parables respected authority and rank, and while workers in the vineyards were certainly worthy of their hire, the Masters were still the Masters. No where do we hear of any kind of personal relationship trumping moral or practical performance. In the Gospels it was always “what you know, not who you know”.

Also, if we read the gospels as close as we suppose the True Believers should do, then we find that Jesus Christ established a clear hierarchy. There were the 12 Apostles, and below them were the 72 Disciples, and then there was everyone else. Even then we can recall passages in scripture where Jesus clearly implied that nobody was quite so close to him as his own Mother (when it was announced that his mother was about to interrupt his speech he said to the crowd in effect that “anybody as devoted to me as my Mother is as my truest and best of Disciples”, from which we can imply that Jesus was being sarcastic… which isn’t often the way Protestant Fundamentalists read the passage… see Mathew chapter 12. The Fundamentalists suppose, quite in the opposite direction, that Jesus was being dismissive of his mother, that ‘Whore of Babylon’, that Matron of the Catholic Church whom they have been damning, cursing and insulting these so many hundreds of years, and so they interpret the passage to mean that Jesus resented the interruption of his mother while he was having his ‘personal relationships’ with his so dedicated disciples. But we have only to refer to the Bible to see what exactly happened – Jesus stopped his talk, departed from his disciples, and went off to be with his mother, and thence commenced the next chapter. It was the disciples who had been dismissed. If only the True Believers in the inerrancy of the Bible would learn to read what actually is being said.

So, in reading the Gospels we find that nobody but his Mother was really very close to Jesus. Well, there are those who advocate for Peter, claiming that Peter was something very special to Christ. But when one actually reads what is said in the Bible, Peter is treated as something of either as a clown, falling faithlessly into the water while Jesus was able to walk, or as an abject coward, running away and abandoning Jesus during the dire needs of his Trial – ‘denouncing him 3 times before the cock crowed’. Then later in the Book of Acts we find Peter reduced to murdering people for their money whereupon the members of the Church elect new leaders to displace Peter, who must obviously had been seen to be corrupt and dangerous… more on that later. But anyway, the scriptures tell us how much he loved Jesus (perhaps inserted into the Gospels in order to support the myth of Peter’s special authority only because Peter had been the only one of the Apostles to support the membership of Paul, that is, Peter was Paul’s only slender connection to legitimacy. And there we can easily see why Peter was so ready to sponsor Paul – Paul had done Peter the service of murdering Peter’s rival, Stephen.

But even if we acknowledge that Peter had a unique love for Jesus, we see nowhere that Jesus requited this love. Then there are those that argue that Jesus had a special love for John. Yes, in the Gospel of John we have the author of that book tell us that of everybody in the entire Hebraic-Roman World at the time that the only person Jesus loved was himself. Okay. If that WASN’T a self-serving assertion then all it means is that Jesus hated all of Mankind except for that one single person – hardly an argument of much use to anybody claiming that Jesus would have a ‘personal relationship’ with each one of millions of Church Members. Besides, this ‘disciple that Jesus loved’ was more than likely a person of more than a small amount of homosexual leanings – remember that the Gospel of John was written by one who was fluent in Greek and the best Greek Speakers of the Day were then quite understood to be or were suspected to be, well, homosexual. So when he was expounding on this great love that Jesus had for himself, we might suppose that he was only fantasizing. Wishful thinking.

Anyway, there is certainly nothing in the Bible that could convince us of a doctrine that Christ would want some personal relationship with everybody … not when during his life he was so careful to set up structured barriers and distinctions. Just review for yourself the Gospel of Mathew as Jesus portrays himself as something of a Judge and Prophet. I would think that Jesus was something of an imposing Man of Authority, a Dooms Day Judge, and a Prophet of the Wrath of God, and not the easy-going subservient ‘lover-boy’ that the fundamentalists would have Him be – their submissive victim of the cross, apparently delighted to have been murdered so that all who condoned such a bloody act of violence against the very Son of God could celebrate being able to sin indefinitely without the slightest apprehension of guilt, which is, after all, the essential meaning of Born Again Salvation.

One really needs to wonder about the very concept of ‘Salvation’. Protestants constantly stress the concept and doctrine of Salvation. Indeed, even the Catholic Church is now emphasizing Salvation more than they used to do when Purgatory was still acknowledged and Repentance and Atonements were still insisted upon. It was a collective ‘dumbing-down’ of Catholicism epitomized especially in the instance when the Vatican II Council back several decades ago effectively surrendered itself to Protestant influences. I even heard one Catholic Priest boost at the pulpit that “Christianity was the only Religion to offer Salvation”. He clearly spoke in the sense that Catholicism and Protestantism were part of one united Religious Establishment, sharing the very same view of Salvation as a central Doctrine – a unique Doctrine setting the Christian World apart from every other Religious Civilization. Well, is that really anything to brag about? Shouldn’t a Religion wonder about itself if it should find itself so unique, and so different from other Religions, as it is most likely rather to be a bad thing than a good thing to be so substantially different from other Institutions of Moral and Spiritual Uplift. And then to be different because it contrives to accommodate immorality? That is what Salvation is, isn’t it? Salvation is forgiveness of Sin.

Who benefits most from the forgiveness of sin?

Well, Satan.

Again, if we refer to the Scriptures, as the Fundamentalists say they do, then we find that John, in his Letters, suggested the same argument in refuting the Doctrines of Paul (though John does not mention Paul by name, and neither does James or Jude who also wrote refuting the Doctrines of Paul. Only Peter ever mentioned Paul specifically by name, to assert that his doctrines were effectively dangerous, and, even then, surprisingly, the Christian Establishment went on to base every substantial doctrine, not on the Teachings of the Christ, but on the stretched presumptions and quasi-theological inventions of Paul). In the Letters of John he explains that if believing in Jesus should be the only requirement for Salvation, then even Satin, Lucifer and every Demon would certainly quality as they, more than anybody else, have the full knowledge of Christ’s existence, both physically and Spiritually. And, yes, reading the Letters of Paul, we could easily conclude that the demons would have every scriptural right to qualify for Salvation – at least as much as Paul would. Indeed, Paul defines every saved soul as inherently sinful, and certainly Lucifer and his demon hordes have that qualification solidly down pat. And then Paul himself was a murderer.

Let us look a bit closer at Paul. He was ambitious and full of pride and self-love. His letters are flagrant with the most excessive hubris. Indeed, when we compare Paul’s history of himself against what the Book of Acts claims for him, we notice that Paul had the higher opinion of himself, by very far. In fact, I really don’t think that Luke, the author of the Book of Acts really liked Paul very much. To the ignorant and barely literate reader of Acts, it may seem supportive of Paul. But Luke was a Doctor. It was likely he wrote over the heads of those who employed him to be their spokesperson. And so we see that in the 3 separate accounts that Paul gives of his conversion experience, the details change with the telling and with his audience, and while the ignorant reader forgets exactly what was said each time, the discerning reader sees Paul must have been a liar at least 2 times out of 3.

Then there is the simple history of Paul given in the Book of Acts – we find no real miracles attributed to Paul, and Luke tells us that Paul gave no evidence of having the ‘holy spirit’. Paul is portrayed as acting childishly against his sponsor Barnabus and hatefully against his fellow evangelist Mark (both were subordinate to Barnabus, but Paul wanted to think of himself as everybody’s Boss). The Books of Acts goes on to describe Paul as inciting riots against the Jewish Messianic Churches and when brought to trial in the Forum of the Jewish-Christian Establishment in Jerusalem, Paul has the unmitigated arrogance of telling the judge that he had absolutely nothing in his entire life to be ashamed of. Well, this was the same Paul who murdered Stephen and persecuted Christ and Christians alike. Many Christians insist that Paul repented at the time of his ‘Conversion’, but clearly he had never repented for a thing. The Judge thought it all too much and had Paul slapped in the face. Also, Paul was bound over for trial – identifying himself not as a ‘Christian’ or even as a ‘Jew’, Paul claimed himself to be a Roman citizen and appealed the decision by that local Court and demanded he be tried by the Roman Emperor himself, who also found him guilty, not for any particular Religious reason but simply because he was inciting riots and found to be civilly dangerous. As Christ had told us, “we would know a Tree by its fruits”. The only one who ever had a good opinion of Paul was Paul.

And it is from this twisted devil of a man, Paul, that we get all of the Fundamentalist Doctrines. Indeed, the ONLY reason that they insist upon their core doctrine of inerrancy of the Bible – that every word of the Bible is the true Word of God, is so that the writings of Paul can have an equal standing with the words of Jesus. In saying that every word in the Bible is the Word of God, the Protestants really intend only to Deify the words of Paul, to make Paul the equal of Christ, and as regards to actual Doctrine, to have Paul surpass Christ. In Doctrine everything Jesus had to say was either ignored or significantly altered later by what must have been considered Paul’s better judgment. And so it was that Jesus, the Judge of the Sermon of the Mount, was to be set aside for Paul who replaced Judgment with Salvation and Forgiveness of Sins. Paul dismisses all the Teachings of Christ and leaves us with the impression that the only useful thing Christ ever did was to get himself killed… killed so that Christians could get a free pass into Heaven.

Which brings us again to our point, and that is that the worst people benefit the most from Christian, that is ‘Paulist’, Salvation. A righteous man gains nothing from Christian Doctrine. But absolute Evil gets into Heaven over Jesus Christ’s dead body. Somehow it just does not seem right.

Now, certainly some people are simple and pure of heart enough to understand that even while they are forgiven of their sins, that they should still live righteously, and such people would never suspect in a million years that Paul’s doctrines of amoral predestination and the definitions of Man as inherently sinful would spell out an effective dispensation for Evil. And yet this is what we find again and again hiding within the Personal Relationships these people have with Jesus. “Once Saved, Always Saved”. Jesus described again and again as always being so very Merciful. Should we wonder that these people could not rather earn Christ’s approval by a life of Righteousness rather than ever taxing his Mercy by what must be an habitual regimen of Sin? So many bumper stickers say “I’m not perfect. I’m Saved.” This is a Religion that gives license to sin. Its huge appeal is that it dispenses with Moral Responsibility and pretends to give Heaven away for free. Without saying so explicitly we may infer that Christian Doctrine has been designed expressly so that Hell may crash the Pearly Gates and overrun Heaven. God and Jesus would suffer the eternal Curse of having to tolerate so many millions of ‘personal relationships’ with admitted sinners. Heaven would be turned to Hell, wouldn’t it? Once Sin is admitted, how could Heaven be said to still be a Paradise?

So what is really going on here? If Satan has the most to benefit from the Forgiveness of Sins, and if the central purpose of the Religion is the Forgiveness of Sin, that is, effectively giving people a license to Sin, then it is really just simply Satanic. Christianity, as it defines itself, is Satanism.


Perhaps the worst result of such a state of affairs that true intellectuals come to suspect that all Religion and Spirituality is equally dangerous – that Jesus and all of the True Saints are of the same substance and intent as Paul. Intellectuals confuse True Religion with the Satanism they have come to despise. Indeed, so many people who complain of “Organized Religion” are only really complaining about the Paulist Doctrines that they have grown suspicious of, if not consciously, then by some genuine intuition which has alerted them. Remember that Jesus had given 3 warnings – That weeds of error and corruption would be mixed with the Wheat of Truth, that wolves would come dressed in sheep’s clothing, and that there would be a Wide Way of Destruction carrying the vast majorities to Hell while the true believers would be few and far between. Oh, and the last Prophet of the Hebrew Dispensation, Simeon (see the first chapters in the Book of Luke), who officiated at the Presentation Ceremony of the Infant Jesus, issued a prophecy, and that was that Christ would be contradicted. There would be no “Christian” Church, but what would come down to us would be the Contradiction. Paul would set the Doctrines. Christ would be remembered only in name, to be hijacked and co-opted for the purposes of others, to create a Religion tolerant of Sin. Then, Simeon’s Second Prophecy was that Evil in the World could be known and marked as it would be insulting to the Heart of His Mother Mary. And here we can reflect that the Protestant Churches have since their inception demonized Mary. Inversely, we can note that all of the most loving and charitable instances of Religion to manifest from out of the Institutions of Christianity have come to us from out of the Marian Religious Orders. Where Christianity actually conforms to the Ideals of the other Higher Religions of the World it is largely because of the Marian Influence. We are reminded that some of the first Civilizations were founded around Goddess Religions.

Anyway, we may conclude at this point that Christianity has gotten itself into one fine mess. It has become a terrible confusion of Religion and Anti-Religion – Christ and Anti-Christ. Could the Catholic Bishops and the Protestant Paulists ever come to see themselves as mistaken? It can’t reasonably suppose it is very likely. Their entire lives have been emotionally invested in this Error, and so they could not very quickly simply drop it. There would have to be some long drawn out struggle with intellectual denial and the inertia of not thinking reflectively but simply from out of old habit.

However, on the other hand, several years ago an Angel came to me during one of my meditations and told me cryptically “The Church of Paul would have one last role to play”. So perhaps this means that Christian Doctrine will soon be seen for what it actually is – the inventions of one man, and a not a particularly nice man. And Religion will then be understood correctly as it should be – as a force for Morality and Social Cooperation, and, yes, as a path toward Spirituality.
And then Christians may not be our only problem. We also may have our intellectual Atheists to deal with. I can’t be the only one to have noticed that where all Religion has been discredited, there has not arisen any spontaneous High Morality, but rather we have seen the mushrooming of criminal organizations and the worst barbaric abuses and economic pillaging – freedom at its worst. And so it is that our Philosophical Atheists should come to recognize that pure reason comes in a Moral vacuum. These people, well meaning as they are (as they may really believe in Natural Goodness, though I suspect what they see as natural goodness is only the cultural remnants from previously religious civilized institutions… a moral inertia), they need to understand that it is quite possible to say that God exists if only in the psychological sense. If a person has a Vision – a psychotic Vision or a Religious Vision, and God is felt or seen, well, in its own context, there God exists. Yes, it may be objected that each vision shows a different God, and in a limited sense this objection does carry some weight. Each person will have a unique take upon their own Spirituality. However, what the Spiritual Orders and the various Mystics, and what even some clinical psychologists have been publishing, is that there seems to be a moral consensus among these Spiritual Visionaries. There seems evidence of a Collective Consciousness. And we should wonder that it is no historical accident that all of the most successful Civilizations have had spiritual and religious traditions as their foundations. Spirituality is inherent within us.