If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone


Jesus practiced Satanism


"Demons, being evil entities, are attracted to their own kind", Jean Williams, Winning With Witchcraft, page 86.

We know today that the gospels are unreliable. There are four of them and they claim to tell us about Jesus Christ the saviour of the world . Incredibly the gospels imply that he was a Satanist or in league with the Devil! Let us examine this frightful suggestion. Let us see if Jesus was in league with the Devil and a Satanist if he lived.
Maybe we have an answer for why the fifth existing gospel, Thomas, has Jesus commanding sin and evil. Jesus said, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits." Jesus hates people, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human.  And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."


The Jewish religious teachers who knew a thing or two about religion said of Jesus in Mark 3:22: ‘He is possessed by Be-el’zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.’  They could not call him possessed unless they thought he really was.  To call him possessed was unnecessary and actually an indication of compassion and denies Jesus could be responsible for his actions.  If they wanted to slander Jesus they would have said, "He is a disciple of the prince of demons and that is how he casts out demons."

Jesus said that there is no one worse than the Devil and then said that being given the Devil’s own name was not the worst insult (Matthew 10:25). Here he was certainly praising the Devil and trying to put him in a better light than to that which he belonged. He was saying that he liked the supreme evil person a lot better than he should. He was honouring the Devil here and displaying his allegiance to him instead of God. To honour the Devil is to make a pact with him. It is selling your soul. Jesus may not have signed a contract with his blood but he was making a deal with the Devil. Jesus was capable of flattery and we see him employing it here.

Jesus once did a miracle of multiplying loaves and fishes for thousands of people and they enthusiastically followed him afterwards but he told them firmly that they were only after him because they got a feed (John 6:14). His sign failed to touch them and the passage gives no hint that only some of the crowd were meant so it could mean all. God would not do miracles that make others more selfish and even the Church says one of the tests of a divine miracle is the great spiritual good that comes out of it. By Old Testament standards, the miracle could only be the product of evil sorcery. Jesus tried to imitate characters like Elijah and Elisha who did secret miracles and which followed the rites of pagan sorcerers. For example, Elisha lay on top of a dead boy and put his hands on his hands and his feet on his feet and his mouth on his mouth to revive him which is indicatory of pagan magical techniques (page 115, Miracles in Dispute). Jesus’ doctrine of a heavenly bliss that nobody normal could refuse when offered destroys any chance of his religion being really unselfish. If Jesus had offered a Heaven where discipline continues and which is not necessarily so pleasant it would have made more sense and ensured more altruism which was the cornerstone of his ethical system. The entire system was one of fabrication and disguise so he followed the Devil he condemned.
Jesus said that his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane before his crucifixion was the triumph of the powers of darkness. It was not as if he had to suffer and die to save all. It was a false victory. He did not see it as the demons destroying his good self for he expected to come back from the dead. He saw his death as the weapon which he would use to create an empire of evil as his offering to his infernal master. And it worked! The death of Jesus has led to evil so great that it is incomprehensible!

John says that Satan put it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus. Satan would have suspected that Jesus was God’s Son if he couldn’t get him to sin and would have plotted to get Jesus killed some quieter way thus reducing the likelihood that Jesus could get converts out of it or by rising from the dead. If Satan was a willing cause of Jesus’ death then Jesus was his servant. Jesus told Judas to go ahead and do the job, to go and obey Satan. Jesus wanted to die for Satan. Loyal wasn’t he?

Mary Magdalene was afflicted by seven demons and allegedly cured. Yet she started the rumpus about Jesus’ resurrection. But what if she only acted as if she were cured? Nobody could tell if she was. What if she was guided by evil spirits to make the others think they saw Jesus? Powerful personalities can make people assume that their imagination is the reality. And one with psychic powers would be omnipotent and know what buttons to press so demons might have given her a few. What if her strength was increased by her madness – it happens – and she duped the soldiers (assuming the unlikely claim that there were soldiers is true) and got Jesus out of the tomb and dumped him and did not recall doing so? A woman like that testifying to history’s most famous miracle is too suspect. It creates suspicion that the demons started the whole thing off. It would be a sin to venerate events that may be demonic. It would be different if Magdalene had not had a history of possession. We have to believe that demons created the resurrection hoax. There is no evidence given for her freedom from demons. The Gospeller just states that she was cured but that could just are hearsay or an opinion or a guess. He gave no corroboration – he doesn’t say he knows firsthand so he does not.
Carl Kraeling studied the Gospel of Mark and gave us a new interpretation of the text where Herod says that Jesus is John the Baptist having been raised from the dead which is why he has the power to do miracles. The key expression in the text is because of this the powers are at work dia touto ener gousin ai dunameij. Kraeling says Herod would seem to think that John who was dead is now Jesus. Kraeling denies Herod thinks it for Jesus and John reportedly ministered at the same time and John did no miracles so he did not imagine that John and Jesus were the same person. Kraeling says that as raising the dead could mean necromancy that John's ghost was in Jesus doing the miracles. Popular belief did and still does imagine that people get strange powers when they die and become ghosts. Jesus then was accused of evilly using John's spirit to do miracles with it. The Bible is clear that necromancy is a grave sin and involves dealing with evil spirits. Mark states that Jesus has authority over the evil spirits unlike the scribes. So Jesus is the one putting demons into people to take them out again. Mark means that Jesus jus gave an order and the demon went out. Catholic exorcisms are not true exorcisms for nobody commands a demon to go with immediate results. It looks suspiciously like a placebo and psychological conditioning. There is no evidence that Jesus' name can eject demons today which would be unsurprising if he were not truly from God.
Jewish tradition is unanimous regarding Jesus being a worshipper of evil spirits and a black magician. The Jews would have been shrewd enough to realise that since Jesus’ miracles caused belief in him that it would have been better to dismiss them as conjuring tricks. But they chose not to because there was too much evidence against it. They KNEW that Jesus a Satanist. The miracles may have been naturally explicable so the fact that they may have been miracles like rain coming when you pray for it makes no difference to the argument.
Jesus was supposedly an exorcist. He claimed that exorcisms have an apologetic significance. He alleged that exorcisms cannot be done by the Devil for Satan cannot put Satan out so they must be attributable only to God (Mark 3). This was a lie as we will soon see.
In Acts 16 a slave girl is possessed by a pythonic spirit (v 16). It helps her with clairvoyance and to predict the future. This refers to the python or snake that was thought by the superstitious to guard the Oracle at Delphi. The serpent was supposedly killed by the god Apollo. Presumably its ghost was possessing the girl! Her gift was very lucrative to her associates. Paul and Silas and others were preaching about Jesus. She went about annoying them for days telling people that they were the servants of the Most High God who would lead them to salvation. Paul finally had enough and told the demon to leave her. It did. The source of income was gone! Paul and Silas were thrown in jail to punish them. It is surmised that the reason demons advertised these men and their message was because they thought they were superior to God. That is nonsense and a rationalisation. We read that the demons were scared of God. It was all a demonic scam to get converts for a demonic saviour. The fact that Paul let her demon preach for him for days before doing an "exorcism" proves that. A demon would certainly be happy to leave if it were helping to get converts for a false Messiah.
In Acts 19, Jewish magicians try using the name of Jesus to cure a possessed man. The demon tells them they have no right to use the name of Jesus and that he knows Jesus. He then attacks the magicians who were lucky to get away with their lives. Again this is blatant advertising for Jesus. The demon would not tell them how to exorcise him or tell them Jesus was the saviour unless Jesus was a son of the devil pretending to be a saint. It is like a Republican candidate for the US Presidency recommending his Democrat rival.

Jesus said according to the gospel of Luke chapter 10 that his seventy two disciples are to say, “Peace to this house”, when they enter a house and if there is a man of peace there it will rest on him and if there isn’t it will come back to them. This is not prayer he is advocating here. If you say a prayer for somebody it is left up to God to administer it and God does not promise peace to everybody. The saints welcomed horrific depressions as sent from God to them. So the idea of you sending peace to somebody and it coming back to you if you reject it is clearly magical. A prayer does not go and give peace to anybody and it does not come back to the praying person like it was some kind of energy. Prayer is asking God to help if he wishes and you cannot make God give peace. But magic is sending power out which may return to the sender. In occult tradition, the bottle spell was one method used to send bad energy back to the person attacking somebody magically. The scriptures Jesus followed condemned magic as evil and sinful and so heinous that persecuting and killing magicians on the orders of God was better than letting them live. Clearly then Jesus’ occultism showed he was in cahoots with Satan for he believed in Satan as a real being with magical powers. The seventy two came back to Jesus boasting that the devils come out of people when they use Jesus’ name but he said to them that he seen Satan falling from Heaven and that he gave them power to trample on scorpions and serpents and prevent them from coming to any harm. Then he told them that they must not rejoice that they can cast out demons but rather that their names are written in Heaven. The mere fact that Jesus let this crew go and treat mentally ill people and depressed people as possessed is proof enough that he was in league with the Devil and that Satan would have been well pleased with these dangerous exorcisms. Even the Church today doesn’t approve of such activity and yet refuses to comment on what Jesus did! To suggest that people should be happy about having their names written in some unseen heaven and nothing else and not even in the power to save people from demons takes ones breath away in its arrogance and how it requires people to put faith before people. Even if the faith requires helping people its only done for the faith requires it and not for the sake of the people.

Jesus said, “Love your enemies”. This was his way of saying let them trample on you. Since he commanded self sacrifice he had to command enemy love for such love can only be selfless. The greatest selfless love is love of Satan the biggest enemy and more than any other enemy. We know that this love for enemies would have to be encouraging them to be hateful and violent ingrates towards you. The man who wanted the world to be willing to make Satan worse was one of his most devoted disciples. He must have wanted us to say nice things to the Devil as if we could try and calm his torment in Hell. Crude Satanists do the same thing.
Suppose Satan needed medicine to live. If Jesus cares about his wellbeing and not his sins or how dangerous he is he will give him the medicine. If Jesus is afraid to help him for he will recover and do terrible harm to others he might refrain for their sake. That would mean that anybody loving you and hating your sins is not necessarily going to help you or work for your wellbeing. So it is odd why people take consolation from the love the sinner and hate the sin doctrine. The love is not about the other person's wellbeing at all but about them.

What if we cannot comfort the Devil? We would still have to act as if we could. It is the will not action that God will be looking at on judgment day. Why would he concentrate on the latter when it is the intent we did them with that makes them good, bad or neither?
Human nature might not like to bow the knee to Satan and worship him but it worships him the only way he cares about. Prayers and hymns as to a deity will be of little pleasing to the the Devil. What pleases him better is for people to serve him by doing evil. Hitler similarly didn't want to be worshipped so much as to have had his will done. People are inconsistent and hypocritical. They worship not God but what they want him to be like. In doing that they indirectly give reverence to Satan for he likes that. He likes to see people drawn away from God.
Here is an example of human hypocrisy. A man is captured by dangerous psychopathic terrorists. Three men risk their lives trying to save him. The three men will be praised for doing this and encouraging each other to do it even if they are the ones that wind up dead. They are praised for putting one life before three lives. They are called altruists. This altruism is certainly selfish. It proves how altruism is just self will in a new guise. If you intend to be selfish, it might be irrational to be selfish that way. So are we to pretend it is altruism just because it is irrational selfishness? If the men risked their lives to get money they would be called selfish even though they are risking as well. So the fact that they are risking for another man proves nothing.
Jesus gave us a God who is really worse than the Devil. The Devil might encourage you to go to Hell but God keeps you there. It is not so much the worship of Satan that is the problem as much as the worship of an evil being. Jesus in Luke 16 told the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. At no point did he indicate that it was a parable. The story might look a bit silly to some but so do many of the tales in the gospels that are presented as history. The Rich Man and Lazarus is definitely intended to be taken as a true story for it gives no moral at the end except that if people will not believe the scriptures then a man rising from the dead to warn them about torment in the afterlife will be a waste of time. It is bewildering to think that the Catholic Church at the time of Tertullian and in good Catholic Ireland had people loving and trying to love a God who was worse than a billion Hitlers. Priests went to school with a candle and told the children that if they could not stand to burn their finger in the flame for a few seconds how would they be able to endure the torturing fire of Hell all over forever? It certainly proves that religion is often a mask for a mental disorder and moral bankruptcy. Jesus if he claimed to be God was claiming to be the eternal tormenter ...


Jesus cast out a demon and the Jews said that the Devil was casting out demons through him. Jesus said that this was wrong and that to attribute the works of the Holy Spirit to the Devil was an unforgivable sin.

Jesus said that the Devil’s reign is over if he casts out his own demons. There are four lies in this simple response. One, that the Devil cannot have a kingdom unless he has people to control like zombies or whatever. This is obvious nonsense and Jesus is plainly indicating that the devils have to possess nearly everybody for he says how powerful Satan is so nearly everybody needs exorcism. Two, the disappearance of the symptoms of possession do not mean that the demon is really gone as every exorcist, Jesus included would have known. A demon would rather skip the dramatics and quietly work for the ruin of its victims and other people. Three, perhaps the demons are just sent to somebody else. Jesus believed they could be for he sent demons out of Legion into pigs. Four, the demons are cast out by Satan for a mysterious purpose and Satan always tries to look good – for even sin has to be made look good before we will have a chance of doing it.

The Jews would have been going around saying that Jesus was colluding with the Devil long before and Jesus would have heard of it. Upon finding out, he would have thought about what to say to silence them. His answer would have been studied and ready for they were educated men and had to be silenced.

His wilfully absurd argument shows that he was not seriously opposed to the evil spirits for it is evil to give lying arguments. Jesus was calling the Jews bad or stupid or both when he knew that they were not so he had lips that hungered to smear the innocent. He accused them of the supreme sin which was the supreme slander.

Jesus obviously did not mind if the Devil was helping him though he said he came to ruin everything the Devil wanted to do. He was willing to help the Devil by attempting miracles. He who is not against Satan is for him just like Jesus said anybody who was not against him was for him. Jesus was trying to get the works of the Devil attributed to the Holy Spirit and that is none other than the sin he accused the Jews of.

Jesus was speaking as a prophet when he denounced the Jews for what they said for only a prophet could say if the Spirit was working through him. But he was a false prophet and Deuteronomy 18 says that one slip is enough to prove a man a false prophet for God knows what he is doing. The gospels say that Jesus' resurrection was his great credential and vindication. If so then prior to it, he had no right attacking anyone for being sceptical of him.
The Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John give a bit of detail about Jesus being tempted by the Devil in the desert. They think of this episode as a demonstration of Jesus’ holiness and vocation as saviour of the world.
Only Jesus could have told people that he fasted for forty days and nights (Matthew 4:2). This had to have been a lie for miracles are meant to function as signs but there was nobody about to see this miracle of living without food except Satan who could not have been impressed by it for Jesus said that he wicked go to everlasting punishment. God would not perform needless miracles.
The Devil suggested to Jesus that he should try to turn stones into bread if he was the Son of God and Jesus replied quoting the Book of the Law that man does not live by bread alone but by the word of God. Either Jesus was mad and really believed that or he was being sarcastic which is a sin for it is not necessary. In any case, the verse does not refute what the Devil suggested so it is clearly an attempt to hoodwink. The quote was written about human beings not the so called Son of God who God would have been obliged to preserve no matter what danger he got into.
The Devil would not have been concerned about the health and strength of Jesus Christ unless Jesus was a fraud. He would have loved him to die of starvation in the desert. If he had to tempt Jesus, Satan would have offered him the kingdoms of the world instead for that would have been the strongest temptation and he would have all the food he wanted. This temptation to transmute stones is silly.
The Devil told Jesus to do a miracle in front of the people to convince them that he was God’s Son (Luke 4). Jesus was asked to throw himself down from the Temple and show that he survived the fall by a miracle demonstrating that he was the Son of God.
Jesus told him that he would not do it for he did not want to tempt God. But if Jesus was God and did it he would not have been tempting God or trying to make God do wrong because it would have been what God chose to do. If Jesus was not God, God gave him free rein with his own magical powers so Jesus doing that still would not have been tempting God. In either case, the Devil was being accused of trying to tempt God or to make God do what he would regret which was not true.
The remarkable thing is, the only way this temptation would make sense is if Jesus did not have any miracle powers and threw himself from the Temple to try and tempt God to rescue him. I could do the same so the temptation suggests that Jesus was nothing but an ordinary fallible sinful man. Jesus was definitely saying that even if he did jump from the Temple there was no guarantee that God would save him when he said that for him to do that would be tempting God for the Son of God or God incarnate simply cannot tempt God for God will preserve him at all costs even if he does let him die. Jesus was definitely claiming to be no different to anybody else. He had no supernatural powers. He had no magic with which to come back from the dead.
Jesus went to the pinnacle of the Temple as if he were ready to jump and be saved by God in order that the temptation would become virtually irresistible. The very fact that Jesus went with the Devil to the pinnacle of the Temple shows that Jesus deliberately sought out temptation which is a sin for it means he was trying to make himself sin. Even if he intended to resist that wouldn’t be right, for tempting yourself means you are trying to make yourself give in. James 1:13,14 says God cannot tempt or encourage temptation. Here we have a man who was supposedly God trying to tempt himself by accompanying the Devil to the pinnacle of the Temple so that he might give in and jump.

If Satan wanted the people to see Jesus falling and being supernaturally protected by God then he wanted Jesus to get followers. He knew Jesus would not jump unless he was sure he would survive. If the death of the Son of God would save the world, Satan would have wanted him to survive and would not have risked even suggesting that Jesus jeopardise his life. Satan would not save the Son of God and God would not save a fraud so Satan was the one who was going to save Jesus. The Devil would not have made the suggestion if Jesus were his enemy.
If Satan wanted Jesus to live and survive the fall then Satan and Jesus were on the same side. If Satan wanted Jesus dead he knew Jesus could rise again and he would be defeated. But he was sure he wouldn’t be. Either way, they were on the same side though they might have differed on non essentials.
Tempting God involves blackmailing him to show his power. We are told the Devil knew that Jesus was God’s Son when he survived forty days of abstinence from food and drink and spent so much time with Jesus. The Son of God could not tempt God for to tempt God means to make God prove his power which the Son of God would already know. It would be spiteful if he asked God to prove himself but it would not be tempting God. This temptation proves that the others never happened for they were about tempting God too and couldn’t have done it. Satan would only try the once if he was going to tempt the Son of God at all.

Tempting God would not be sinful like Jesus implied. It is only asking for evidence for his existence. Blackmail is forcing someone to give what you are not entitled to.

Some would say the fall was not to be done in front of witnesses but when nobody could see. But then it would have been no temptation. Satan had no need to see how powerful God was for being an ex archangel he knew full well the extent of that power. And Jesus would have found nothing appealing about jumping and not being seen. So it is clear Jesus was meant to jump and survive in public.
Christians often tell the lie that Satan wanted Jesus to decide to make converts the easy way without suffering and without labouring as a missionary. If Jesus worked miracles then he gave into this temptation. He made people lepers if he had divine power and then cured them which would be no different from deliberately falling to be miraculously saved by angels. Anyway, Jesus could have jumped off the Temple and did all the other works he did the hard way. It is nonsense to say the temptation was about trying to get Jesus to take the lazy way out because he could have if he wanted to for we are told that the coming of Jesus is a gift we do not deserve and was entirely gratuitous. And the lazy way might have worked better than the hard way too for human nature is funny as God likes to keep reminding us.

The Gospel of Luke (4) says that Jesus did tempt God like Satan requested when he went to preach in an aggravating way in of all places a synagogue near a cliff where God had to intervene to rescue him. Jesus could and should have had a gang for protection to save God the trouble or should not have preached so near the cliff. He would have known what they would have been like. The fact that the gospel may just mean that Jesus might have got away without using an obvious miracle makes no difference for God still had to do a miracle albeit a secret one.

It is claimed that Jesus was not into arbitrary displays of power when he resisted the temptation even though surviving the fall without a scratch would not be arbitrary but would convert the people. But if he did public miracles then he had to be into arbitrary displays for he could have done secret ones instead. So if the temptation was to get Jesus to show off then he gave into it. Some say the temptation was to make miracles the message instead of making miracles to verify the message. This is nonsense for Satan never mentioned that miracles should be the message and indeed did not want Jesus to preach that message if it was good so he would have told him to forget the message and do the miracle. He didn’t so Satan wanted Jesus to do the miracle and get fans. Moreover, Satan would not have expected Jesus to make miracles the message for people do not like miracles just because they are miracles but because they seem to offer hope of a better world so he would not have tempted him that way. Thus, the temptation shows not that Satan was trying to corrupt the good Jesus but that both were playing for the same team. Jesus was lying about his experience with Satan to make it look like they were opponents. Satan knew Jesus could do the miracle and repent and then do the message and he would not have taken the risk of trying to persuade Jesus to do the miracle unless he was sure Jesus was on his side. Jesus seems to have been a demon that even Satan looked up to. It could well be that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke which record the temptations were trying to expose Jesus as a diabolist and had to write books that looked Christian to do it.

Christians say that the reason Jesus could not go along with the miracle of jumping from the Temple and surviving by the power of angels was because this miracle would only have been for producing astonishment and not for doing anybody any good (page 65, Why We Believe, Leon Cristiani, Burns & Oates, London, 1959). But if that is true then why did he not change the stones into bread and do himself some good?  Was there any real difference between going to the cross deliberately to rise again and what the Devil asked him to do when he could have saved the human race and died and rose without the cross? You could say this of the healings Jesus did, he didn’t do them anonymously but in public to make an impression and astonish the people into conversion. Jesus did set out to astonish and try to speak to people’s hearts through their wonder. The Devil never said he wanted Jesus to just go after astonishment, the Devil knew astonishment is necessary for faith to develop, but to tempt God. The Devil knew that even if Jesus tried to astonish people but it was no more than just showing off, it could still result in them converting to the ways of God.

The temptation was not about showing off or wasting power or laziness but about trying to get God to give Jesus miracle powers and protection. The gospellers may not have realised that but that is what we read. By doing miracles Jesus gave into the temptation and lied when he said he resisted it. Satan wanted him to show himself immune to danger in public which would be a greater miracle than the resurrection in which some lunatics could have stolen the body and nobody saw Jesus rising but a few reported visions of Jesus in a world that is full of visions that all contradict and condemn each other. Satan wanted him to make quite an impression. When the Devil wanted Jesus to do the perfect miracle and then Jesus settled for less in the resurrection it shows that by no means can the resurrection be contemplated as evidence for the sanctity of Jesus Christ and the correctness and divine inspiration of his message.

In brief: the Matthew and Luke gospels say that the Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the Temple and suggested that he throw himself down for God wouldn’t let anything bad happen to him. This miracle would impress the people and get Jesus converts easily because he would need to do it in public to make it worth his while. That is what Christians tell us. But God might have wanted Jesus to do that so why was Satan so sure it was a sin? Jesus doing that would not have stopped him going on the cross later. Obviously the only motivation that makes any sense is that Jesus was being asked to do miracles.  


Satan and Jesus both believed it would be a sin for him to try. It would be a sin if you didn’t have miracle powers in the first place. As we have seen, if God gives you the powers then it is up to you if you want to do a miracle and jump off a skyscraper and be found intact by people expecting to see nothing left of you but mush. This shows that the gospels of Matthew and Luke which have this story are hinting that we should not believe that Jesus was a true miracle worker. Either the miracles are symbols or they were tricks.
Perhaps Satan helped Jesus do miracles through trickery. Many have testified in the past that Satan rather than changing nature like magic manipulates it so that a miracle seems to have happened. For example, he could make a ghost seem to appear to you by making you mistake a ray of moonlight coming in your window for the shape of a person causing you to imagine that you saw a person who spoke to you. The gospels make no effort to eliminate this hypothesis for the miracles of Jesus. They just give us dubious evidence which is faulty precisely because we are not told enough. The gospels certainly do magic tricks with facts, that is what conjurers do, they don’t tell all but use misdirection.
The bit added on to Mark 16 to fill the gap left when this gospel did not mention the resurrection of Jesus states that Jesus gave his disciples black magic powers. He said they could drink poison and survive and handle snakes unharmed. He was obviously telling them God would enable them to do miracles just for show – a doctrine that the entire Christian Church prefers to forget. If God would do that then it is impossible to understand why he won’t do those kinds of miracles today. It is undeniable that a liar wrote this section even he was telling the truth that Jesus made this promise for he claimed that these signs happened. It may not have been the same author as the rest of the gospel for the gospel is rather sober while this new section is over the top. The section clearly states that the message was confirmed by these signs. So it was miracles that could not be from God more than the resurrection that got converts! Interesting! That means that nobody in the early Church was an authority on what was from God or not and nobody really cared if the resurrection was historically verifiable – they tried to verify it by additional miracles which they shouldn’t have needed to do.

Whether human or divine this Devil was an emissary of evil. Jesus acceded to his temptation. He went over to the evil side.


Satan tempted Jesus three times.  Jesus was starving in the desert and Satan advised  him to turn stones into bread.  Satan was very concerned for Jesus' wellbeing.  It is telling that he didn't show him starving children and tell them to turn their stones to bread.  Jesus tells Satan man needs bread alone so the moral of the story is that if God does not want to change the bread then do not try to force him.  So why didn't Satan try to use the suffering of others to turn Jesus against God?  He knew Jesus was not truly a good man and he didn't want his devoted servant to be to perish in the desert.


Satan then proving he could take Jesus' corpse from the tomb to start a resurrection hoax transports Jesus to the Temple.

"Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you’ and ‘with their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”


The argument is that God puts you in this world to look after yourself and others so you cannot expect miracle short cuts.  Jesus gave into that temptation later for he did no good works at all only miracles.  And it is felt that Jesus was being asked to jump and  survive miraculously to win over the people.


As a form of temptation, the Devil promised Jesus that he would give him supreme power over the world if he worshipped him. The Amplified Bible reveals that all he asked for was for him to do it just the once (Luke 4:7). Jesus had given into Satan before and all sin is devil worship so he certainly did give into this temptation.

And when the once or even a few times would have done, Jesus could have taken over the world from Satan and then repented thus defeating Satan. Or he could have offered feigned worship to Satan or made Satan hallucinate Jesus adoring him to get the world. Strange that Satan cannot hallucinate like we can for if he has any senses at all he should be able to. God could stop Satan doing harm or as much harm by making him hallucinate. God is worse than he is yet God is the one who says Satan shouldn’t be doing what he does implying he has no need for anybody to do evil. The temptation shows that Satan was really on Jesus’ side for Jesus was one of his. The world must really have belonged to the Devil for the temptation could not work on the Son of God who would know if the world was not the Devil’s to give if Jesus was the Son of God.

Satan was sure that if Jesus sinned that Jesus would be evil forever which implies that Jesus was full of latent evil and which certainly infers that he was not the Son of God.

When Satan left this temptation to last (Matthew 4:10,11) it suggests that he was reluctant to part with the world except as a last resort. But then he must have believed that Jesus was the Son of God and not God for God already owns the world. There was no reason for Satan not to know that Jesus was God if he was so Jesus probably never claimed to be God. This seems to contradict what I have said before but perhaps we have caught Jesus out in a lie. Perhaps Jesus said it was left to last to give the impression that he had to be the Son of God. They will reply that Luke says this temptation was the second one while the one about jumping from the temple was the last. They claim they can reconcile the two accounts by saying that one or both was not chronological. They ignore the word then in the text that denies this but of course words never stopped them from using lies to reconcile the Bible’s disagreements with itself. Matthew would be the chronological one for his order is logical. Satan would start off small by suggesting turning food into bread, then he would advocate a show off public miracle and then offer Jesus the world. Matthew would be the one who is most likely to have the right order. It was because Luke saw that Satan would not offer the world except at the end and because he didn’t like what it implied that he shoved this temptation between the other two.

The arrogance of Jesus claiming that the Devil gave him special attention as if he were the most important man in the world is stomach churning and what Christians take as self directed monomania in others is not that when Jesus does it. Sad. How loving and fair it all is!

The temptations prove that he was the Son of Satan.

Paul says that Jesus was the resurrected Son of God because he had visions of him. His evidence for Jesus’ holiness is no good for he thinks Jesus is holy for he has appeared to him as the Son of God. The real world’s evidence comes first even if miracles do happen and are real because you cannot authenticate miracles unless you accept concrete ordinary evidence. So Paul needed affidavits and records of Jesus to have the right to declare him sinless. He couldn’t for his Jesus was just a dream.

Then there is the four gospels and Acts. Do these prove that Jesus was a holy man?

The gospels make it clear that many of the Jews and all the leadership were hostile to Jesus and considered him to be a heretic and an evil man. Mother Teresa would have been a person with no credible critics if she had kept her vicious mouth shut and not said things like poverty being a gift from God and contraception was wrong even when it saves lives. But even with that it is taboo to condemn her and few dare to. Jesus could have looked after the poor better so that the critics would have been few but he did not. He just had loads of enemies which in his case proves he deserved them.

The Baraita and the Talmud’s speak of Jesus Christ. They were created by Jewish rabbis some centuries after Jesus though they contain many traditions that hail from the time of Jesus.

Some say there is no proof that they meant Jesus. Others say that when they usually tended not to mention his name it is clear they were on about someone who the readers would have known. If so they were convinced that to mention his name much would be a terrible thing for he was such an evil man which indicates that they were sincerely opposed to him in a well meaning sense and it was not spite. But why wouldn’t they mention his name? After all they named people as bad. Weren’t they afraid in case the Christians would fabricate evidence that they meant Jesus when somebody else was meant? It looks as if they did not want to say what they said about Jesus but felt that they had to because they thought it was the truth.
The Baraita says, “On the Eve of Passover, Yeshu of Nazareth was hanged. And a herald went about ahead of him for forty days shouting: “Yeshu of Nazareth has tricked Israel and performed evil magic. He shall be stoned. Those who can defend him against these charges must come and plead for him and clear him.” But there was nothing to indicate that he was guiltless so they strung him up on the day before the Passover”. The Jews did not practice crucifixion feeling that it was a Gentile form of execution. When this man was hanged it must mean that he was put up on a pole for the people to fire stones at him. This is more believable than the gospel version which has a Jesus who gets up the noses of the ruthless establishment and wreaks havoc unfettered and who then bizarrely ends up crucified.

Also, this Yeshu is not said to have lived in the time Jesus did. Nazareth did not exist in the thirties so it must have been long after. The Jews might have believed that this man was the basis of Jesus Christ whereas Jesus might have been totally made up.
The Jewish Law as given by God specified a penalty of stoning to death for the following offences only. Consorting with familiar spirits (not necessarily evil spirits just spirits) Leviticus 20:27. Cursing or blasphemy Leviticus 24:10 23. False prophets who encourage idolatry Deuteronomy 13:5 10. Adult son who is incorrigibly out of control Deuteronomy 18:18 21. Adultery Deuteronomy 22:21 24. Rape Leviticus 20:10. In John 8 the Jews pick up stones to kill Jesus because they say he blasphemed. In John 10:33 they do the same thing because they say Jesus is making himself out to be God. But Jesus never claimed to be God. If he did the Jews would not have accused him of blasphemy but of being a false prophet who was trying to seduce people into idolatry. That required stoning read Deuteronomy 13:5 10. It is most likely that if there is some truth in the reports that Jesus was nearly stoned it is because he was into familiar spirits.

Justin Martyr who was killed in the 160s inferred that he knew that the Jews called Jesus a sorcerer.

The Baraita informs us that Jesus had five disciples, Mattai, Naqui, Netsar, Buni and Todah. It calls Jesus the son of Pandera. Pandera was the man they thought was Jesus’ father. It says that Jesus taught that he had not come to take laws from the Law of Moses or to make new laws to put in it.

It is likely that the apostles of Jesus were impostors and that these men were the real disciples. And that Jesus had a human father.

The gospels say that Jesus was the model of goodness but often let the real truth out.

But even if they coherently stated that he was good and nothing else the fact would remain that the evidence for his wickedness would be stronger.

We read in the Gospels and Acts that the people who knew Jesus best, his neighbours and family and the educated, did not believe that he was telling the truth when he preached. He complained that the generation he was a part of was an unbelieving one. The Church says that when he died even his apostles turned against him. False prophets who preached religion just as demanding as Jesus’ have done tremendously better. Joseph Smith had built the Mormon Church up to 30,000 members by the time he died despite his wickedness, his changing of doctrine and his failed prophecies. He did it in just fourteen years. These people suffered terribly for their religion. Jesus must have been worse at religion mongering. When we have just four writers possibly saying that Jesus was sinless and a multitude denying it is obvious who we should believe. We should believe the majority.

John the Baptist who Jesus said was the most important man ever born of woman must have been so if he was the forerunner of the Son of God. But John did not acknowledge Christ despite being in jail knowing he could be killed any time. Jesus himself then said that John was the most important witness in relation to him. Whatever John testified about Jesus had supreme standing on account of who John was. John did not believe in Jesus so he testified that Jesus was a fraud.
Is it any wonder the Jews said Jesus was a satanic magician when apparitions of him after his death told deliberate lies? He appeared to people to tell them his crucifixion and death and resurrection were related before they happened in the Law and the Prophets and the Writings. Not a single New Testament text mentions anything about the Messiah dying and rising again like Jesus supposedly did.




Occult lore says that those who do exorcisms risk being possessed themselves.  Catholic lore says the same thing and gives precautions.  Jesus took no precautions or even thought of them.  It is not good enough to assume he was God's Son and did not need to.  How could his exorcisms be a sign that he was from God unless he stated what precautions he took or why he did not need them?  Tellingly there is no hint in the gospels that if the demons left the victim they stayed away.


Catholics say a demon never possesses the victim's soul but the person's body.  In that there is an implicit denial that your body is you.  When you are possessed it is like the demon and you are two ghosts in the one machine.  However, the Church does say the victim could be willingly giving her soul to demonic influence.  It is thought that as God is love the demon does not go in unless somehow invited.  Others think God sends the demon in.  But in both cases the person is expected to contribute to getting the demon out by repenting their own sins.  It is remarkable that in Catholic and Jesus exorcisms there is NO CONCERN for the person's spiritual state or holiness. Their rites are degraded superstition.  And they are the ones that say that magic cares not for virtue but prayer does.  Exorcism then must be superstition dressed up as prayer!  If the person really turned against all evil the demon would have to go and there would be no need for an exorcism.


If Jesus was possessed it does not follow that he ministered long enough for that to become obvious.  Many people thought to need an exorcism develop signs of demonic possession gradually over time.  Did he mean his body and soul both were possessed by evil when he accused God of abandoning him on the cross?  That would imply God could not reside in his black heart.
Jesus Christ, if he had paranormal powers and if there is a Devil obtained them from him. He pretended to abhor Satan. There is evidence in the gospels that if Jesus existed he was a Satanist.

Arnold, Clifton E. Ephesians: Power and Magic, The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of its Historical Setting, 1989, Cambridge University Press.
—. The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae, 1996, Mohr Siebeck.
Aune, David F. “Magic in Early Christianity,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, H. Temporini & W. Haase, (eds), 2.23.2 (1980), 1507 1557.
Baur, Walter, William F. Arndt & F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1957, University of Chicago Press.
Bertram, George. “energew,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. Kittel (ed), 1964, William B. Eerdmans.
Bolt, Peter G. Jesus’ Defeat of Death: Persuading Mark’s Early Readers, 2003, Cambridge University Press.
Conybeare, Frederick C. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, II, 1921, Harvard University Press.
Eitrem, Samson. Some Notes on the Demonology in the New Testament, 2nd edition revised and enlarged, 1966, Symbolae Osloenses, Supplement XX.
Frayer Griggs, Daniel. ‘More Than a Prophet’: Echoes of Exorcism in Mar kan and Matthean Baptist Traditions,’ Matthew and Mark Across Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Stephen C. Barton and William R. Telford, K.A. Bendorais & N.K. Gupta (eds), 2016, T&T Clark.
Garrett, Susan R. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings, 1989, Fortress Press.
Gordon, Richard. “Imagining Greek and Roman Magic,” Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and Rome, B. Ankarloo & S. Clark (eds), 1999, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hanse, Hermann. “ecw,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. Kittel (ed), 1964, William B. Eerdmans.
Harmon, Austin M. (tr). Lucian, III, Harvard University Press.
—. Lucian, V, Harvard University Press.
Hoehner, Harold W. Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ, 1972, Cambridge University Press.
Hull, John M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, 1974, SCM Press Ltd.
Jennings, Theodore W., Jr & Tat Siong Benny Liew. “Mistaken Identities But Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5 13,” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 467 494.
Jones, Christopher P. Culture and Society in Lucian, 1986, Harvard University Press.
Kannaday, Wayne C. Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition: Evidence of the Influence of Apologetic Interests on the Text of the Canonical Gospels, 2004, Society of Biblical Literature.
Kotansky, Roy. Greek Magical Amulets: The Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper, and Bronze Lamellae, Part I, Published Texts of Known Provenance, 1994, Westdeutscher Verlag.
Kraeling, Carl H. “Was Jesus Accused of Necromancy?” Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940): 147 157.
Kraemer, Ross S. “Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter in the Death of John the Baptizer: A (Christian) Theological Strategy?” Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 321 349.
Marcovich, Miroslav. Origenes: Contra Celsum Libri VIII, 2001, Brill Academic Publishers.
Margalioth, Mordecai. Sepher Ha Razim, 1966, Yediot Achronot.
Morgan, Michael A. Sepher Ha Razim: The Book of Mysteries, H.W. Attridge (ed), 1983, Scholars Press.
Myllykoski, Matti. “Being There: The Function of the Supernatural in Acts 1 12,” Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrative Miracle Stories in the New Testament and its Religious Environment, M. Labahn & B.J.L. Peerbolte (eds), 2006, T&T Clark.
Ogden, Daniel. Greek and Roman Necromancy, 2001, Princeton University Press.
—. In Search of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice: The traditional tales of Lucian’s Lover of Lies, 2007, The Classical Press of Wales.
Philostratus, Flavius. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, I & II, F.C. Conybeare (tr), 1912, Harvard University Press.
Preisendanz, Karl. Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die Grieschischen Zauberpapyri, I & II, 2001 (reprint), K.G. Saur.
Rabinowitz, Jacob. The Rotting Goddess: The Origin of the Witch in Classical Antiquity’s Demonization of Fertility Religion, 1998, Automedia.
Reimer, Andy M. Miracle and Magic: A Study in the Acts of the Apostles and the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, 2002, JSNT Supplement Series 235.
Ricks, Steven D. “The Magician as Outsider in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament,” Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, M. Meyer & P. Mirecki (eds), 2001, Brill Academic Publishers.
Samain, P. “L’accusation de magie contre le Christ dans les évangiles,” Ephe merides Theologicae Lovanienses 15 (1932): 449 490.
Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud, 2007, Princeton University Press.
Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? 1978, Harper & Row.
Sorensen, Eric. Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity, 2002, Mohr Siebeck.
Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, 1993, Mohr Siebeck.
Vermeule, Emily. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, 1979, University of California Press.

Williams, Jean, Winning with Witchcraft, Finbarr Books, Kent