Imagine Theres No Satan - How Satan Got PDF

Imagine
There’s No
Satan
How Satan Got Into The
New Testament
Volume II of
Satan Christianity’s Other God
By James R. Brayshaw
Copyright
September 17, 2010
SCOG Publishing
www.imaginenosatan.com
1
By James R. Brayshaw www.imaginenosatan.com
Imagine There’s No Satan

How Satan Got Into The New Testament
Copyright © 2010 James R. Brayshaw
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by

any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system
without the written permission of the publisher except in the case
of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.
Books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:
jrbrayshaw@scog.ca
Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any Web addresses or

links contained in this book may have changed since publication and
may no longer be valid.
ISBN: 9-781449-61473
Printed in the United States of America
SCOG Publishing rev. date: 06/25/2011
Print edition cover photo Satan Before the Lord by 18th-century Italian
artist Corrado Giaquinto
2
Imagine There’s No Satan – Volume II
Table Of Contents
INTRODUCTION-Pg 5
CHAPTER 1
Can A Witch Raise A Dead Spirit?-
Pg 23
CHAPTER 2
Where Do The Dead Go?-
Pg 41
CHAPTER 3
Can Satan Give Psychic Power?-
Pg 77
CHAPTER 4
Psychic Fraud Or Satanic Inspiration?-
Pg 117
CHAPTER 5
Where Was Satan Before Jesus Showed Up?-
Pg 153
CHAPTER 6
Would Jesus Or Satan Quote The New Testament?-
Pg 179
CHAPTER 7
Where Did Jesus Learn About Satan?-
Pg 217
CHAPTER 8
The Pharisees Brought Satan To A Synagogue Near You–
Pg 243
CHAPTER 9
Who Gave Satan His Names?-
Pg 253
3
CHAPTER 10
What’s The Final Word For Satan In The New Testament?-
Pg 279
CHAPTER 11
Demons, A Greek Gift To Christianity-
Pg 309
CHAPTER 12
Is Satan Revealed In Revelation?-
Pg 335
CHAPTER 13
Where Would Satan Be Without The New Testament?-
Pg 357
BIBLIOGRAPHY-Pg 379
INDEX-Pg 385
4
Imagine There’s No
Satan
Volume II of
INTRODUCTION
Satan has been around for millennia. There is literally no other
doctrine or idea that has penetrated so deeply into the fabric of
culture as has the doctrine of Satan. Satan, Lucifer, devils, and
demons can be found everywhere today. They are found in
television programs and movies, they can be seen on clothing and
in art work, music with lyrics about Satan are heard every day on
the radio, and video games seemingly have an unceasing stream of
demonically related content. And the most prevalent place we can
Introduction 5
find Satan in our culture is in the churches. The intensity with

which many religious organizations in our world today believe in
Satan varies. Some battle him daily in prayer and with rituals,
while others think him to be an insignificant imp who is worthy of
little or no attention at all. No matter what you or I feel about the
Devil really doesn’t matter because the presence of this good angel
turned bad, has undeniably left an imprint on the fabric of this
culture’s belief structure. But just because some see the devil
behind every bush does not mean he is real. No doubt, there is not
one person in North America who has not heard about Satan in
one form or another, but should a collective consciousness
determine Satan really exists? Or should each of us explore the
idea and decide for ourselves whether Christian tradition is true or
whether it is a brilliantly spun interpretation of an otherwise
ancient myth? What if there is no Satan? And what if there is no
Hell? What if all the tales, lore, and legends about this fallen angel
are mere fabrications of men’s minds? Stories made up around an
idea that there is something evil out there. Another deistic entity
that is intent on destroying humanity and capturing souls in Hell.
Imagine if you will that there is no Satan. Imagine that the
teachings on Satan we receive from religion and from culture are
simply not true. Is it possible that religion has made a mistake in
this area? Imagine that a lie has been told so long that it has
become the truth and now it is time to right it. It is time to place
the Satan of tradition back into the place he came from. Believe it
or not, we can take Satan out of our belief system, place him back
into the creative mind of man where he came from, and still
recognize the sovereign God of the Universe for who He or It is.
That is a God who makes peace and creates evil, a God who kills
and makes alive, and a God who shares the cosmos with no other
supernatural being.
This Volume of Satan Christianity’s Other God called
Imagine There’s No Satan will take us beyond imagining. As a
work that follows the foundational work of Volume 1, Imagine
There’s No Satan goes further to show you how it is possible to
remove a literal Satan from the teachings of religion and the New
6
Testament. How it is possible and valuable to begin to separate

fact from fiction and let our belief in Satan drift away into the land
of once believed fairy tales. If you read this volume alone and have
never turned a page out of Volume 1 you will do just fine at
understanding the concept that Satan is not real. That said, I do
encourage you to pick up a copy (or an e-book copy) of Satan
Christianity’s Other God – Volume 1 to explore the foundational
principles that gird up the no Satan idea. Volume 1 covers major
topics that I will not cover here or in the subsequent volumes of
this work.
In Volume I of Satan Christianity’s Other God, great care

was taken to show that a doctrine of Satan was not found in the
Hebrew Scriptures. It was also shown the Hebrew Scriptures are
the Bible Christ and the Apostles used. We determined the Lucifer
of Isaiah 14 was not the name of Satan before he fell. The name
Lucifer is a term given to an actual human King who was called the
“daystar” or “morning star.” Both terms were used to speak of the
ancient King of Babylon who was thought to be the God Venus.
And Venus rose before the Sun came over the horizon in the early
morning. Thus, the title “Lucifer” is a Latin word that simply
means light bringer and is better translated as “daystar.”
While on the topic of ancient Kings, we can bring to mind the
story of the anointed cherub in Ezekiel 28. Although it is thought
by some that this passage is a reference to a Satan angel who was
once in Heaven, we showed that is not the case. The subject of
Ezekiel’s prophecy is repeatedly referred to as a man and the
context of his entire proclamation is directed at the human King of
Tyre. We found that the fallen cherub is merely a man and there is
no teaching on Satan to be found in Ezekiel.
Both Job and Zechariah contain references to a Satan;
however, as we explored the meaning of the original Hebrew word
“sawtawn,” we came to understand the reference was to a human
adversary. In Volume I, the statement of the adversary “coming
before the Lord” in Job was shown, to be a reference to men
appearing in the common Temple environment as is inferred by
Introduction 7
the use of the term “Before the Lord” elsewhere in Scripture. We

found it in such places as when Moses “came before the Lord.”
Volume I also covered the idea that God created man with
the potential to choose good and evil. No Satan to entice man to
disobey and choose evil. This option leaves man as the party fully
responsible for sin and evil in his own life and thus in the world.
According to the Bible, Satan the mythological malevolent cosmic
being has nothing to do with man choosing evil, nor causing evil in
the world. The concept of where evil comes from as it pertains to
judgments upon humankind was also articulated in the first
Volume of Satan Christianity’s Other God. It is found that evil
proceeds from the Creator in diverse forms, forms such as calamity
upon an individual or upon many. As well, we saw that the evil
spirit and the lying spirit were sent from Yahweh as was seen in
the st0ries of King Saul and King Ahab.
Another path we went down in Volume I included
discussions about the Persian influence on the faith of the
Scriptures. As the Hebrew people spent time in exile among the
Babylonians and Persians, they adopted many of the pagan
philosophies of those nations. The doctrine of there being two
Gods, a good God and a bad God, migrated into the land of Israel
from Persia. The religious leaders of the time propagated a
doctrine that there is an evil cosmic being who desires to harm
Yahweh, destroy His people, and toils to thwart the plans of the
Creator.
Volume I spoke about the early use of the word Satan in the
English language Scriptures and elaborated on the significance of
apocalyptic thinking and apocalyptic literature in fostering a Satan
doctrine. Both of these topics were explored to reveal that Satan
only existed as a construction of Greek minded theologians who
adopted the ideas of pagan mystics. The Hellenized teachers could
neither understand Hebraic concepts as found in the Scriptures,
nor could those teachers reject the desire to fabricate mystical
explanations for Scriptures they were incapable of understanding.
Many topics were discussed throughout Volume I and there
could still be volumes written to continue to explain all the
8
nuances surrounding each concept. This four volume series begins

to testify to the magnitude of this topic. As I stated several times in
Volume 1, my explanation of certain Biblical passages is only a
plausible explanation of the account. It is based on the fact that
Satan does not exist. So too, do I provide the disclaimer that
although I am boldly declaring that Satan is not a real cosmic
entity, the explanations I provide are only possible explanations.
They are suggestions if you will, of how to see the traditional
passages differently than how one who believes in Satan might
teach. It would be irresponsible to state Satan doesn’t exist and
then fail to provide an answer to what all the passages about
“satan” mean. Although I do provide an answer to what the
questionable passages about Satan could mean my submissions
are not to be taken as the 100% exhaustive and precise
explanations of the accounts. I do not have all the answers. There
is wiggle room in some of my explanations. There are far too many
specifics missing in the stories supplied by the Apostolic witnesses
for any one proposed answer to be deemed as perfect. The point of
providing an explanation is so the reader might see that there
exists another way to think about the statements about Satan in
the Bible. In light of the fact that there is no Satan there must be
another way to understand the terribly misunderstood references
to Satan in the New Testament. I also hope my submissions
encourage the reader to engage in searching for an explanation
that upholds a One-God belief system and provides a coherent
explanation for the poorly understood words about “Satan.”
Did Satan Or Did God Cause David To Break The Rules?
One of the profound apparent contradictions in the Scriptures was

answered in Volume I. It is found in the Books of 2nd Samuel and
1st Chronicles. These accounts seem to oppose each other on the
story of David counting the tribes of Israel. In one account, we are
told that God caused David to count the tribes, yet in the other
account we are told that it was Satan who incited David to do the
count. Who was it, God or Satan? Solutions to this problem were
Introduction 9
put forward, and it was determined that either the writer of

Chronicles was misinforming the reader about there being a
second God in the universe named Satan, or he was simply
describing God as the adversarial force that placed a choice in
front of David. It is likely that the Chronicler simply described the
actions of God as “sawtawn” in informing the reader that Yahweh
was the adversary in this instance where David was influenced to
make a bad choice. After all, the writer of Chronicles knew that the
Hebrew word sawtawn was not a name for a cosmic entity but was
a noun or a descriptive term for a behaviour or action. Sawtawn
means adversary.
No topic seemed to be more daunting or more
misunderstood than the topic of the Serpent in the Garden. A large
amount of time was spent establishing why so many believe
incorrectly the meaning of the myth of the Serpent in the Garden.
With this in mind the discussion of whom or what the “serpent”
was ensued. It was shown that the serpent is a metaphorical
symbol that was identifiable as such to an ancient people. People
who had been steeped in polytheistic Egypt for generations. In
seeing the writer of that story refer to the serpent as speaking to
Eve, we recognized that a great storyteller relayed the account of
Adam and Eve. His story was full of meaning and the mention of a
“serpent” was simply a reference to the evil inclination in humans.
Evil comes from within man and not from an external force. The
evil inclination is that place in a human’s heart that works
overtime so to speak, to justify the choice to disobey, thus sinning.
Man today has the same struggle with the “serpent” on many
occasions when man is confronted with the opportunity to do
something that does not really seem harmful, yet would be
considered to be a sin for one reason or another. One other
possibility for the identity of the serpent was discussed based on
who Eve was “with” in the garden. We presented the possibility
that Adam just might have been the adversarial influence called
“the serpent,” in the famed garden fruit-eating incident.
At the close of Volume I, we briefly discussed what was next
for Satan Christianity’s Other God. Volume I led the way in
10
bringing to light more questions that need to be answered.

Perhaps you see that peeling back the layers of this onion will be
no small task. How long of a process should it be for one to come
to a conclusion as to whom or what “satan” is? For some of us it
may be longer than for others, and as you can see, it is not a quick
task to try to unteach or, to unlearn a concept and belief that has
been in our head for years and in our culture for centuries. With
that in mind, let’s consider what we need to accomplish in Volume
II.
What Will We Learn In Volume II?
Initially, this Volume will clean up any loose ends that may be
dangling around in our discussions of the Old Testament as it
pertains to “Satan” and his demons. In my many discussions with
people over the years, I have had numerous opportunities to share
the concept of Satan not existing. No matter which piece of the
puzzle I choose to disclose, I am always met with a “trump card”
statement that usually goes like this; “Well what about…..” and
then one of the many supposed references they have long believed
to be about “satan” is quickly thrown at me. This is always done
with the attitude that intones what I am saying can’t possibly be
true because this verse that started with “Well what about…” is
certain proof there is a Satan. An example of the “Well what
abouts…” would be; “Well what about when Jesus throws Satan
into the pit of Hell?”
The “Well What Abouts…”
The difficult thing in all these “Well what abouts…” is that often
the person who is so sure they are bringing up a reference that I
have not considered, doesn’t wait for a full answer. I and others in
a similar position are invariably cut short by the uninformed
questioner and before they hear the answer to their insincere
query, they are ready with another cliché counter-argument that is
Introduction 11
understood by them the way they have understood it in the past.

Here’s an example conversation of the “Well what abouts…”
between a man named Jack and me. It may seem to be
unnecessary to recount a personal conversation to express the
point but there are so many who take the same direction of using
the “Well what abouts…” as Jack did that it is helpful to show how
this conversation plays out. Notice how the response hamstrings
the process of sharing truthful information with another.
Jack: “How can you say there’s no Satan when the Bible
mentions Satan a whole bunch of times?”
Me: “Jack if there is a Satan as so many of us believe, why

does God incite David to number the tribes of Israel in the
book of 2nd Samuel, and then in 1st Chronicles 21 the text
says ‘Satan’ incited David to number the tribes of Israel in
another account of the very same story?” Who incited
David, God or Satan?
Jack: “Well what about when Job’s family is destroyed by

Satan?”
Me: “Well Jack, if you look at the Hebrew word for “satan”
in Job, it really means “adversary” and the most typical
adversary we find in the Scriptures is a human man, being
an adversary to another man. Aside from the fact that Job
himself credits God for the evil that befalls him, we see no
indication of a personal Satan. Even the end of the book tells
us that Job was comforted by his family for all the evil that
God had brought upon him. Doesn’t that seem to indicate
that evil comes on people from other men or from the
Creator and that the adversary is generally another
human?”
Jack: “Well what about when Jesus was tempted by Satan

in the wilderness…
12
Well what about the appearance of Satan in the garden…

Well what about when Lucifer fell from Heaven….
Well what about ….well what about…well
what about…”
Without ever being allowed to fully answer any of Jack’s

questions, or without Jack ever answering any of my questions,
Jack continued to throw out his hail-Mary trump card to get me to
shut up.
It used to seem odd to see people so quickly and often
vehemently pounce on the, “Well what about…” bandwagon. They
avoided answering me when I had just asked them a question
contained in the topic, such as, “Why does 2 Samuel 24 say “God”
caused David to number the tribes of Israel and 1 Chronicles 21 say
“Satan” incited David to number the tribes of Israel?” It was as if
they didn’t hear me or maybe they didn’t care and were one of
those types of people who will do whatever it takes to make certain
they are not proven wrong in anything. Perhaps they are so
intensely incapable of relinquishing an entrenched belief that they
must at all cost lay down a trump card to stop the relaying of
information and honest questions about a rather significant topic
for “Christians” and “Messianics.” The Jacks of the world are so
intent on propagating their weak understanding of a character
they have been taught to believe in, that all they can do is
ignorantly throw out cliché references that they have never taken
the time to fully investigate and find out if their view agreed with
the rest of the Bible. This trump card is played with such speed it is
almost as if the person I am conversing with is afraid to hear
anything that might challenge their belief system.
One such trump card I have seen played many times is the
one that says, “Well what about the witch of Endor?” (This will be
discussed in Chapter 1; Can A Witch Raise A Dead Spirit?). To the
player of that card, the story of Saul consulting a medium is
irrefutable evidence that there are spirits and demons. Therefore,
to them it means there is indisputably a “Satan.” The logic is that if
Introduction 13
a “witch” could cause a spirit to rise up from the dead then there
must be a Satan because spirits raised from the dead are demon
spirits and therefore would be of the group under Satan.
Granted the story of the witch of Endor does smack of
spiritism and I can readily understand why one would so hastily
play the “Well what about…” trump card. However, in light of a
little research and in light of the remainder of the Scriptures, this
“witch of Endor” episode does not fit with the concept of One God
as many of the Israelites believed and as is taught in the Bible.
When Did Thinking Become So Mystical?
This second Volume of Satan Christianity’s Other God, will

explain the intense spiritual thinking found to be prevalent in the
intertestamental period. The period after the return from exile of
the Jews and leading up to the first years of the A.D. period
nurtured a great amount of damage to the true and correct
teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures. Our discussion on this period
that entrenched a demonology into Judaism and Christianity
informs the reader about the pertinent issues to consider. A
complex demonology and angelology flourished in those years and
to this day confusion abounds because of the clever and intricate
doctrines of demonology that flowered in this period.
We will also find out where the dead go according to the
Bible. This discussion will allay all your fears that you or your
loved ones might be burning in Hell for an eternity.
Understanding where the dead go is important if we are to
recognize there are no spirits raised from the dead.
Discussing What The New Testament Is
A huge piece of fat we will chew on in the following pages is one

that often sends religious leaders running to the hills crying,
“Heresy! Heresy!” If I told you today that archaeologists found a
letter written in the late first century, by a man named Paul who
claims to be an Apostle of Christ, would you expect it to be added
14
to the Bible and to call it Scripture? Not likely! However,

something not far from that has occurred with the Bible that many
have come to venerate today. A Bible containing letters from
devout apostles that were written to individuals and to groups of
believers. These letters were not identified as important until the
late second century. No originals of these letters have been
discovered as of today and the writers of each of the letters in the
New Testament clearly state their document is a “letter.”
Regardless of those facts, the copies of letters that were available
in the early “Christian” period stayed in the hands of the Roman
church. This was a group of men who eventually decided that the
letters ought to be elevated to the status of Scripture. Ultimately,
the New Testament was formed and in large-part, it took a very
anti-Hebraic tone because the Roman religious system wanted to
eradicate any nuances of Jewishness from the pagan Christianity it
had incubated for centuries.
Within this work, the reader will be fully informed as to why
one should not consider the New Testament to be equal to the
Scriptures. The definition used for what the term “Scriptures” is, is
one that coincides with both Paul the Apostle and Yeshua the
Christ. Neither of those persons considered any writings other
than the “Old Testament” to be Scripture.
The Apostolic writings, which include the gospels, are
valuable for many things that can aid a believer in understanding
their faith as compared to that of the first century. The testimony
the apostles provide about the life, ministry, and death of Yeshua,
is indeed invaluable. It is certainly a gift from Yahweh in light of
the fact that there are no living eyewitnesses available for us to
hear from today. However, man should not use his self-imposed
ecclesiastical authority to declare a letter from an apostle is
“Scripture.” These letters are often believed to be so based on the
fact that the letter speaks of Yeshua as the Messiah. Had we access
to all the documents of the period Paul wrote his letters in and the
eras immediately beyond, we would see there were other
documents resembling Apostolic writings that identified Yeshua
was the Messiah. Facts remain though; even Paul taught from the
Introduction 15
Old Testament that Yeshua was the Messiah. If the reader is

willing to have their belief about the New Testament examined,
then the chapters on exploring the claim that the New Testament
is Scripture will be most informative. Time will be spent explaining
what is meant in the New Testament when words such as Satan,
demon, devil, unclean spirit, and dragon are used. We will see
clearly how it is possible that Christianity has mistakenly
understood the Greek writings about satan. And now, 2000 years
from the times when the New Testament took place; religion has
cemented its stranglehold interpretation into the minds of its
leaders and followers. Because of this, few are willing to accept
another possibility for learning what a satan is in the New
Testament.
Explaining Every Passage About Satan
Volumes 3 and 4 of this work will provide a catalogue of every

passage that speaks of these Satan related things. It would be
foolhardy to assert that each explanation provided requires no
input from other sources to interpret the meaning of some difficult
passages. However, every passage in the New Testament that
seems to speak of a cosmic supernatural, God-like entity is
considered. A plausible explanation of each passage is put forth
using the foundational interpretation principle of understanding
the context of the passage, and recognizing what the writer is
speaking about at the time. The literary context is joined with the
linguistic, cultural, social, and historical context, to decipher the
underlying Hebrew understanding of a very Greek sounding
writing. Based on the fact that, Hebrew men wrote the “New
Testament,” and the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures do not teach a
doctrine of a cosmic Satan who is battling against all that is good,
the explanations suggested herein are put forth on the certain
premise that Satan does not exist in the mind of a Hebrew apostle.
As I have stated, because Satan does not exist the passages must
mean something other than a reference to a cosmic Satan. These
16
successive volumes share a verse-by-verse, understanding of what

all the talk about Satan is in the New Testament.
A Little Encouragement To Seek Answers For Your

Questions
When we are part of a culture that so deeply is looking for

recognition and acceptance, particularly by those who we perceive
to be people of position and influence, it is an incredibly difficult
challenge to go against the grain. Few people involved in religion
will question the very leaders from whom they are seeking favour.
I suppose one must ultimately conclude whom it is better to please
and obey, God or men? I am one of many who found it was not
easy falling out of favour with those whom during my church years
I worked so hard to stay in favour with for so long. Are we
supposed to passively sit by under the teaching of a “shepherd”
who is trained to teach and lead in ways that muddy the water for
those who numbly follow a seminary trained pastor? Am I
suggesting anarchy? Not at all, it is good for us to voluntarily
submit to proper authorities, but as the Bereans in the book of
Acts did, so too should we ensure through searching the
Scriptures, that what those leaders are saying is true. Are we in
fact submitting to proper, Biblically sound authorities? For some
who sheepishly follow their “leader,” laziness is the reason they
don’t invest time in finding answers for themselves. Laziness
becomes an acceptable excuse, relying on others with credentials
to give them the answers. Mindlessly deferring to the person of
position and influence will only set you up to be seen as honouring
that person as your God. Where possible, it is always best to search
out the answers for oneself and rely on others and other sources to
add information, insight, or questions to the process.
I know how difficult it will be to start challenging the
established leaders of your chosen religion, so in an effort to help I
will suggest a plan to get you started. If you are a regular attendee
of a church try this. The next couple of Sundays stay home and
study one or two of the stated doctrines of your church or faith
Introduction 17
group. Look up the verses they quote and then try to see how the
present position fits into the Hebrew Scriptures that Messiah and
the Apostles used. Next go to your computer and if for instance
you are studying on “the gift of tongues” do an internet search with
the following wording… “the truth about tongues.” This will give
you many differing perspectives but I guarantee you it will open up
your eyes to a number of potentially more correct and true
understandings of the issues. You can use “the truth about….”
searches for anything to launch your studying. Try “the truth
about Sunday,” “the truth about Easter,” “the truth about
Christianity,” or “the truth about Satan.” The last of these is where
I started searching out the truth of the “Satanic being” and began
to unravel the centuries old myth and misinformation that “the
leaders” of Christianity generally pontificate without exploring the
other options for the matter.
But I’m Not A Theology Student Some Might Say!
At one time the Scriptures were kept from the common folk so
only the religious elite with special training could study them.
They then passed on what they learned to the people, the
uneducated common folk. In today’s society we have an amazing
access to information readily available at our fingertips. Also in
today’s society, we have freedom of speech like never before. One
thing that is not so prolific in today’s society is the acceptance of
what seems to be new ideas without coming up against sharp
criticism. Criticism will often be directed at a person’s character, at
the way they share their information, or at the resources they have
used to accumulate evidence to support their idea. And truthfully,
constructive criticism can be helpful and should always be
welcome. But should resources be thought of as not credible
simply because the potential for them to contain error exists?
Today the use of the internet has allowed people to learn things
that were only known by the intellectual elite of past societies. I
encourage the use of the internet for any who desire to learn truth
18
or deepen their understanding on a topic or issue. Although, it

would be good if the internet is not your only source.
Regarding the internet as a source to determine if Satan
exists or not, I can hear some of you voice a similar caution given
to me over the years. “Be careful with what you find on the
internet, the internet is full of crap you know.” I’m not sure why
they are compelled to give that caution. Maybe it’s because they
are cautioning themselves to be careful and are setting up their
excuse to not go and search a matter out. Perhaps they have a fear
that they may find some truth that causes them to honestly
question their beliefs and face the ugly monster of change. On the
other hand, maybe it’s because they truly believe the internet
articles, opinions, and theological positions found therein are crap.
Should we not then receive the similar exhortation to “be careful
what you find at the library, the library is full of crap?”
Alternatively, by not stating the exhortation about the library and
in stating the exhortation about the internet are they saying the
shelves of the library are full of only no-crap material? I suppose
there is some level of fear of the internet still out there that causes
one to inform another intelligent person of the perils of using
internet material to educate oneself. Do you know that it is now
possible to get a university degree via the internet? Do you know
that the internet is like any library in any city of any time?
My point is this, before you decide that the internet can’t help
you find information to help you understand issues of truth,
understand this, yes there is “crap” on the internet, as one friend
put it to me. However, so is there crap on the library shelves.
Nevertheless, there is also exceptionally clear and true information
on the library shelves and the internet. If you sign out ten books on
a specific topic, from the biggest library in the world, you may find
garbage in a number of them. Nevertheless, you may find
information that is valuable in helping to lead you to the truth.
Many people get themselves in hot water because they look over
two or three articles and perspectives on an issue and then form
their opinion. You will come to a much more sound opinion and
position if you read through and study 10 or 20 articles on an
Introduction 19
issue. Besides the Scriptures and History books, encyclopedias and

commentaries, as well as other writers who have put out books on
the topic of Satan, I have been through hundreds of articles on the
subject of Satan. I am not saying you have to go through that much
material to cover every topic you begin to question. I just want to
quell the fear around using the internet as one of your resources
for research and express to you that it is not a good practice to take
only a few thoughts and opinions from the internet to form a
position on an issue. That said I also want to share that still today I
continue to look at the many sides of an issue.
Ask Questions, Seek Answers, And Take Your Time
One tip I would like to give you to help you to apply this
process of coming to a more correct understanding of issues of
truth is this. Ask questions, seek answers, and take it slowly. You
will not likely get answers from the traditional body of religious
leaders. You will have to search things out on your own. There are
millions of leaders who will try to prevent you from gaining
information that will change the way you live your life. In large
part because they only know what they have been taught at
seminary. It seems there is a fear, a fear that you becoming
knowledgeable will confirm to them that they have failed to show
you the way of truth. Truth is for everybody and everybody ought
to embrace the opportunity to discover it. An adverse reaction to
the truth you discover is often the result of the fear the hearer
possesses. However, truth will set you free but it will cost you
something to get it. The book you are reading right now is an
excellent starting point to finding the truth about Satan. German
philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer said;
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-
evident.
20
Part of my experience in organized religion has revealed

this fear. The church I was involved with had about 800 or so
people who could be recognized as regular attendees or members.
The Board of Deacons, which was chaired by the Senior Pastor,
had nine members on it if I recall correctly. It was the duty of these
elected officials to mange the administrative matters of the system
and to help direct the spiritual matters of the church. I served as a
Deacon for two terms, which is 6 years, and resigned near the end
of the second term. My resignation came after I realized that this
system, although a thriving social environment, was in opposition
to numerous tenets found in the Bible.
A journey through the history of Christianity will reveal to
the searcher when and how men changed God’s plan for the faith
into a model which was intended to assimilate and integrate
anyone and everyone into the Roman religious system. The Roman
philosophy of “bigger and better” was sufficiently implanted in the
Roman version of faith in God and their tainted form of Gnostic
Christianity fell together nicely for a culture that was sold out to do
whatever it took to become the biggest empire. Suffice to say,
Christianity today is a far cry away from the pattern of the first
century believers. In seeing Christianity as a mosaic of adopted
and man-made doctrines, I was compelled to become less involved
in organized religion rather than more.
What Do You Have To Lose By Learning Satan is Not

Real?
Many of us believe we stand to lose something if we realize our

belief in Satan is incorrect. Most of us are not the religious leaders
who draw a salary in part, by teaching Satan is real. Therefore our
loss is only as big as we make it. On the contrary, a religious leader
might feel differently about altering his or her dogma. Upton
Winifred Sinclair Jr. was born in 1878 and died November 25,
1968 at the age of 90. He was a novelist, writer, journalist,
political activist, blacksmith, and was a prolific American author
who wrote over 30 books in many genres. Sinclair was considered
Introduction 21
one of the best investigative journalists of his era. He understood

implicitly how difficult it is for those of position to come to an
understanding of something that might force them to alter their
philosophy; he spoke it well when he said;
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand

something when his salary depends upon his
not understanding.”
Perhaps your salary doesn’t depend on whether or not you

understand the doctrines of your religious belief system or if Satan
exists or not. Perhaps you simply desire to stay the course and not
rock your philosophical or theological boat. Change is never easy
but after you have turned that ship around and are floating with
the current again, the turbulence subsides, and life moves along
smoothly once again. The decision, as always, is left up to the
reader. Who better to decide than yourself if you believe in one
God, two Gods, many Gods, or no God? Nonetheless, after reading
Satan Christianity’s Other God and this book, Imagine There’s No
Satan, you may still choose to stand on confused logic and faith
alone if you still persist that Satan is real. But the evidence is
overwhelmingly in favour of the non-existence of Satan. Faith is
imperative to a belief but truth cannot be ignored and all the facts,
history, and the full counsel of God must be considered. In this
book series, the scales of proof have been loaded and once both
arguments are critically considered, Satan as an evil, supernatural,
cosmic being weighs in to be an ancient and evolved myth little
more than a man made legend, lore, and lie.
22
CH AP TE R 1
Can A Witch Raise A Dead Spirit?
Is it possible to raise a spirit from the dead? Think about that. Can
a person be dead then have their sleeping spirit awakened in order
to be consulted about the future? In the book of 1st Samuel chapter
28, we are confronted with a story that is more than a little creepy.
We find there, a story thought by many to be a certain indication
that Satan must exist. In that story, we seem to see a woman call
upon the spirit of a dead man and the spirit appears. This woman
has been said to be a witch by many interpreters. But is she really
contacting the dead? This story is not so much related to how the
word sawtawn is used because the word sawtawn does not appear
in the story. But any story that talks about what we call a “witch”
does pertain to our overall topic of Satan. To put it simply, the
spirit of Samuel could not have been physically present in front of
the witch of Endor; otherwise, the entire Scriptural understanding
of what happens to a dead person must be ignored.
The connection of this story to our theme today is that a dead
person is supposedly raised from the dead in spirit form. Being
dead means a person cannot appear in spirit form or any other
form. Therefore one can dismiss this obscure yet famous story of
Saul’s encounter with the witch of Endor as a tale of a literal
resurrection of a dead spirit. We no longer have to view it as a tale
that suggests support for some kind of a possible after-death
existence. An existence that is variously affixed to a cosmic,
supernatural, evil spirit-god. In this chapter and the chapters
following, I will address how it is incorrect to simply suggest God
raised the spirit of Samuel from the dead. Had God done so, He
would have applied a practice that is ostensibly contrary to all He
teaches about the state of the dead.
CHAPTER 1 – Can A Witch Raise A Dead Spirit? 23

I too used to think of Saul consulting a medium as evidence

for a spirit world of devils and demons opposed to God but now I
understand differently. To fully explain how this story can be
understood we are going to go down a number of roads in the next
chapters that will soon converge to show us the answer.
These roads will include;
-Speaking about my personal past experience as an

“intercessory prayer” person in a charismatic Pentecostal
church;
-Understanding where we go when we are dead to help us

understand if Samuel could have been summoned by the
medium;
-Understanding modern day spiritists and the façade they

present that draws people into believing them and
subsequent hearing and seeing what they so badly want to
hear and see; and
-We will go down the road of asking the question of why we

believe in the powers of psychics. Through that we will
understand if this psychic experience of Saul’s could have
been brought about by the powers of “Satan” sending a
spirit pretending to be Samuel.
Once we have looked at those few areas of interest, we will

piece together an understanding of the story of Saul and the
woman with the familiar spirit at Endor. Let me just clarify why
this story is of interest as we try to show that there is no Satan?
This story is pertinent to our discussions for one very important
reason. If in fact it plays out as many believe it to be, that there was
the appearance of a spirit of the dead Samuel in front of Saul and
the “witch,” then dead souls can be contacted and the idea of
Satan’s reality is strengthened. As I stated above, the spirit of
24
Samuel could not have been truly present in front of the witch of
Endor; otherwise the Scriptures are false or at best ignored.
If Satan Exists, Why Is He Not Bound By All The Prayers

Against Him?
The above question was posed to me recently and I thought it was

a curious question worthy to consider. Why is Satan not effectively
bound? I began to think, after having been in many “intercessory
prayer meetings” and knowing of thousands of others who have
been taught to “bind Satan and all his demons” in prayer daily;
why isn’t it working? Why isn’t Satan bound?
Praying this type of “satan binding” prayer in the name of
Jesus, should actually then cause “satan” to be bound, shouldn’t it?
Why is “Satan” not effectively bound, stopped from his wicked
activities? If there is anything to the power of Jesus' name in the
manner it is being used by intercessors and the like, why then is
there no cessation or observable diminishment of “satanic” activity
in the church? Or the world for that matter? If this “intercessory
prayer” is the “spiritual warfare” it claims to be, then it is a front
line attack with no potency. The facts are however, if spiritual
victory is to be claimed it will not be against an imaginary cosmic
Satan, rather, it will be by one individual at a time, coming to
terms with the sin that dwells in them. The sin that proceeds from
the wicked, human heart.
The purpose of spiritual warfare is to gain the victory over
Satan and the forces of darkness. But where is this victory?
Spending time binding up, casting down, and cutting off a spiritual
force that doesn’t exist, is truly a fruitless and sometimes
destructive parlour game. It distracts individuals from finding out
what God’s word really teaches about the spirit realm. I have been
an active part of many prayer meetings where a sick person is
being prayed for and the “spirit of infirmity” is being cut off from
them. In true intercessory fashion, this cutting off is often very
intense and animated, almost always accompanied by a swinging

and chopping motion of the arms and hands, as if the hand were a
sword that was cutting a branch from a tree. Sometimes the
cutting would take place with the “Bible” in hand, pretending it is a
literal “sword.”
Intercessory prayer teams often took on the job of doing
spiritual warfare on behalf of a sick person. The wild group of
intercessors that I was familiar with, presumed that the illness of
the victim being prayed for was from a demon spirit and we would
essentially force the subject to suffer through our mystically
inspired antics. When I look back, I wish I had asked my fellow
prayer team members if anyone of them stopped to ponder, “Hey,
maybe it’s God’s will for that person to be ill?” Isaiah Chapter 30 is
one place in Scripture that depicts affliction as coming from the
Creator towards a people who will not heed His laws. Often
diseases and trouble come from the loving Father who has
repeatedly warned His children. So often, we blame an illness on
some other force or entity when it is attributable to God. Isaiah 30
verse 20 tells of the adversity and affliction coming from Yahweh.
And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water
of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any
more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers:
Isaiah 30:20 KJV
The bread of affliction and water of adversity mentioned by

Isaiah may include specific sickness. These things come from the
Lord. It may seem unbelievable to us that sickness is not coming
from “satan” but studying the times it is placed on people in
Scripture will show you that it is never attributed to “Satan.”
Paul the Apostle, a Hebrew of Hebrews, was familiar with
what he called, “a messenger of adversity.” He was well aware that
when he was speaking of the thing that was afflicting him, which
he calls an infirmity, that he was personifying it in a Rabbinic
sense. It was simply an adverse condition that humbled him. Paul
would have clearly understood that his infirmity was sent by God.
26
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance

of the Revelation, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the
messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above
measure.
2 Corinthians 12:7 KJV
John Gill has a lengthy bit of commentary on this passage.

Gill takes the time to reference common uses of the term by the
Jews, a practice that we need to pay attention to. The connection is
certain however, that Paul who was a Jew would have aligned
himself with the same understanding of the terms.
…it was usual with the Jews to call

concupiscence, or the vitiosity of nature, Satan;
for so they (a) often say, "Satan, he is the evil
imagination,” or corruption of nature; and
particularly they call the lust of uncleanness by
this name; and it is said (b) of a young man of
Israel, being tempted by a young woman of
Midian, through the counsel of Balaam, that,
"Satan burned in him,” and he turned aside after
her; and that the evil imagination is the old
serpent; yea, they call this "the messenger of
hell,” a phrase very much like what is here
used.
"R. Hona (c), as he was preaching to the

children of men to take warning, said unto them,
children, beware, "of the messenger of hell"; but
who is this? the evil imagination, or
concupiscence, is that which is "the messenger
of hell"; 1
1
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)

According to historical usage of the phrase, we have Paul

suggesting that the infirmity he suffered is perhaps something
from within Paul and not an outside force affecting Paul. The word
he uses has a Hebrew origin and simply means to speak of
something posing a problem for a person or that seems to be
adversarial. To be sure, Paul is not explicitly and literally stating
that the cosmic archfiend and enemy of Yahweh was laying some
type of infirmity on Paul and the God of the Universe refused to
liberate Paul from it. At the very least the argument for this
messenger not being a supernatural entity is strong and Paul
knew, any time an adversary was sent to a human being, it came
from God. There is no example of Paul shouting at the devil in
intercessory prayer and binding the demons of his infirmity. The
infirmity Paul had is no different from the concept of what an ex-
pro football player may have after a tough career where he
incurred some serious knee damage. Years after his retirement his
injured knee that is subject to re-injury, repeatedly requires
surgery, leaving him unable to play football like the old days. At
that, we may find such a one saying, “It sure is humbling having
this damned knee keeping me from getting back on the old grid
iron.” The football player might as well call his old injury a “thorn
in the flesh.” In the language of Paul, he might even say that he has
an injury that is an adversity, “a messenger from satan.” In this use
of the word “satan” the injury is not represented as an adversary
opposed to God but it is an adversary for the football player in that
it opposes his desire to play football and keeps him from
continuing his career.
There are mountains of speculation as to what Paul’s thorn in

the flesh was; we likely won’t resolve that debate here. However,
for interest sake we will look at Albert Barnes’ list of some of the
conjecture surrounding Paul’s infirmity:
Every one who has become familiar with

commentaries knows that almost every expositor
28
has had his own opinion about this. and also that
no one has been able to give any good reason for
his own. Most of them have been fanciful; and
many of them eminently ridiculous. Even Baxter,
who was subject himself to some such disorder,
supposes that it might be the stone or gravel; and
the usually very judicious Doddridge supposes
that the view which he had of the glories of
heavenly objects so affected his nerves as to
produce a paralytic disorder, and particularly a
stammering in his speech, and perhaps also a
ridiculous distortion of the countenance. This
opinion was suggested by Whitby, and has been
adopted also by Benson, Macknight, Slade, and
Bloomfield. But though sustained by most
respectable names, it would be easy to show that
it is mere conjecture, and perhaps quite as
improbable as any of the numerous opinions
which have been maintained on the subject.
If Paul’s speech had been affected, and his face
distorted, and his nerves shattered by such a
sight, how could he doubt whether he was in the
body or out of it when this occurred? Many of the
Latin fathers supposed that some unruly and
ungovernable lust was intended. Chrysostom and
Jerome suppose that he meant the headache;
Tertullian an earache; and Rosenmuller supposes
that it was the gout in the head, kopfgicht, and
that it was a periodical disorder such as affected
him when he was with the Galatians; Gal_4:13. 2
2
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Albert Barnes (1798-1870)

I agree with Barnes’ thoughts on the needlessness of such

conjecture, but one thing for certain is that this infirmity was not
being removed by the God Paul served. If one continues to posit
that this messenger of “satan” was referring to the cosmic fiend,
then one might as well say “Satan” was controlling Paul’s life
because Yahweh chose to do nothing to prove He was the God of
Paul’s life. Ridiculous! Let’s let Paul’s language mean what it
meant the day it was written. Paul meant that his thorn in the flesh
was being an adversary to him because it was causing him grief.
2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance
of the Revelation, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the
messenger of adversity to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above
measure.
I will continue a little more on the intercessory prayer topic

for a few moments. In intercessory prayer groups, there is some
commonly understood language. Phrases such as; “to break down
strongholds,” “to bind the legions of Hell” or to go after some
“territorial spirit” in a prayer meeting are all understood to mean
spiritual warfare will be taking place. And by the prayers of the
intercessor, the powerful forces of wickedness will be overcome.
For instance, a “territorial spirit” is believed to be a particular
spirit with a strangle hold of some degree, on a geographical
location and is affecting the area in a negative spiritual sense. I
recall the days when we participated in praying down a “territorial
spirit” or any of the major ominous spirits we thought were
residing over a geographic location. Engaging in this type of
“spiritual warfare” engendered huge feelings of power and
authority. Upon returning from the battle my wife and I would stay
up late and enjoy celebratory snacks while recounting the
moments of the intercessory meeting and the powerful battling in
the spirit we had just endured. We had overpowered supernatural
spiritual forces by our devoutness and intense “warring” that
30
evening. It was quite inebriating I must say, to engage in such

intense make-believe battle. Today I see clearly that the only thing
we accomplished by our spiritual warfare against unseen demonic
forces was to whip ourselves into a frenzy and strengthen our
connection with others who were performing the same circus act.
Our procedures were so similar to the ancient pagan Gnostics
in their style and patterns of worship, that to look at it today and
assess my participation in the intercessory drama, really brings up
disappointment. In some ways, I wish I had not been so persuaded
by a seductive system promising power, and by the charismatic
people who seemed to really be “moving in the spirit.”
People See What They Believe And Believe It’s Real

Because They “Saw” It
Aside from the experiences I had with intercessory groups,

believing demons were real caused me to see many representations
of “satanic” activity. While holding such a strong belief in the
demonic world I would claim the “spirits” I saw had form and
figure, as well as they brought a distinct feeling. Looking back on
those experiences it is clear now that I seemed to see what I
wanted to believe. The self-delusion that happens to a person with
a sincere desire to believe something exists happens with
“spiritual” people sometimes and is common in impressionable
children. Wanting to see something that really isn’t there
happened to my oldest son when he was a youngster. I will talk
about that in a moment. As for the psychology of spiritual warfare,
there are a few things I will briefly address.
The desire to experience more power and to go deeper into
the realm of intercessory prayer warrior stuff brought with it the
perception of phenomena. The seeming appearance of many
sounds and visions were really fabrications that originated in my
own trained, hyper-spiritual mind. It is so easy to see what one
wants so badly to see, if only to affirm the positive feeling that they

are seeing what others say they see. Take the case of my son
throughout a few summers in his early years.
During our summer trips up to the lake, my wife and I would
tell Cass that he might see a bear or a deer in the woods while we
were traveling. Every time we drove along the highway to the lake,
we would always be on the ready to witness a creature of the woods
on the side of the road at the edge of the forest. While staring out
the car window into the passing woods, he would say; “Look,
there’s a bear!” or “I see a bear in the woods.” This would happen
at least two or three times each trip. We didn’t go to the lake often
and my wife and I always told the kids that we might see some dear
or a bear on the way to the lake. The “bear sighting” of a bear that
wasn’t there was our fault for instilling the idea that one might be
seen into an impressionable young mind. No matter how diligently
Angellah and I peered in the direction of his pointing finger and
how carefully we asked if he was sure he saw a bear, the answer
was always the same. As far as Cass was concerned, he had
definitely seen a bear. Our son desired so intensely to see
something that he convinced himself that he saw something. This
is such a common psychological trick the human mind plays on
itself that many of us have “seen” things that were never really
there to see.
We see what we want to see even if it isn’t there. Or we see
what we believe exists, even if it doesn’t exist. How many children
see ghosts in their room or monsters under their bed? How many
perfectly sane individuals believe they see some type of a dark
form lurking in the shadows when walking through a dark street or
park, late on a moonless night? We not only see things we want to
see and see things we believe exist, but sometimes we see things
which simply aren’t there but do exist. Many people have had the
experience of being focused on a task or perhaps a TV program and
then sharply turn their head because they thought they saw
something dart across the room out of their peripheral vision. The
human mind does “see” things that is sure, but because we see
them doesn’t prove the thing exists. I hope you get my point that
just because it is “seen” doesn’t mean it was seen. What is seen in
32
the mind’s eye can be perceived as very real to the visual senses but
is not truly, physically present.
The Power Of Auto-Suggestion…Saul Saw What He

Wanted To See
What took place with Saul and the “witch of Endor” is kind of
along those lines. Just to make sure we understand the story, it is
important to know that the word “witch” doesn’t appear in that
account. The word used is “ob” and comes closer to describing a
ventriloquist than it does to describing what is commonly
understood today as “witch.” The “ob” will be discussed shortly.
The short explanation of this situation is this. Saul was
desperate because the Prophet of Yahweh, Samuel, had died. Saul
wanted a word from God informing him as to what was to be the
outcome of his war with the Philistines. Saul decided to go to a
woman with a familiar spirit, which we know as a witch. The
woman was an experienced cold reader and extracted information
from Saul that helped her pull off her deception. She was aware
that Samuel the prophet was dead and that she could be killed too
if things didn’t go well during her audience with the desperate
king. She knew it was Saul she was dealing with, probably because
of his great height being head and shoulders above those around
him. This trait was mentioned in the Scriptures and would have
been one of the well-known attributes of the King of Israel. This is
described in the following passage.
And they ran and fetched him thence: and when he stood among the
people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and
upward.
1 Samuel 10:23 KJV
This and other characteristic anomalies of Saul may have

tipped the witch off as to who it was she was dealing with. She
knew that Saul had been told he was to suffer a defeat in war soon

and she then put together all the bits of information that she had
gathered and flawlessly plied her trade.
The text of this story talks about something coming out of the
ground but the Scripture doesn’t say Saul saw the “god” coming up
from the ground. He asked the woman what she saw and when she
explained her vision, Saul put a name to it assuming that it must
be Samuel. The text is careful to not say he “saw” something rather
it says he perceived. Perceived and saw are two different words
and mean different things.
1 Samuel 28:14
And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man
cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that
it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and
bowed himself.
How something like this happened was likely in this manner;

The woman, in her theatrical, well-practiced style, shrieked, and
was then asked who she saw. Saul had asked her to bring up
Samuel. Samuel by the way was a well-known Prophet of Israel
and the story in 1st Samuel tells us that all of Israel lamented
Samuels’ death.
Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried
him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those
that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.
1Samuel 28:3 KJV
So the woman with the familiar spirit would have been

acutely aware of who Samuel was. Therefore, she was able to
describe a well-known characteristic of Samuel the prophet, such
as him having a cloak and a beard. Saul was eager to believe the
woman was seeing the spirit of Samuel. Saul’s desire to believe,
enhanced by the woman’s description of a well-known prophet,
caused Saul to “perceive” that it was Samuel who the woman was
seeing. Saul did not see the “spirit” but had to ask the woman who
34
it was that she saw. The woman used her ventriloquist skills to
make Saul believe that Samuel was speaking. She did so by
projecting her voice to sound as if it was coming from the ground.
When examining the history related to this story we learn
that ventriloquism was popular in this day. Ventriloquism is an
ancient craft used by the charlatan who practices necromancy
(speaking to the dead). Shortly, we will discuss the use of the
words in the Septuagint and some of the understanding by noted
commentators who explain that to speak from the ground was no
more than excellent ventriloquism passed off to the hopeful
participant in this case, as if it were Samuel.
The woman in this story then delivered the word she believed
Saul would accept as a word from Samuel, a prophet who would
have had great renown in Israel for the words he had shared.
Although it was bad news, the already desperate King received it
willingly as if it was from Samuel the prophet. Based on Saul’s
experiences with Samuel in the past, he would not have been
surprised to get word that he would be defeated by the Philistines.
It’s not a lot different from how a lifetime smoker, who is
experiencing serious health problems, is not surprised to hear
from his doctor that he has cancer.
Saul had not kept the word of Yahweh, so the foreboding
prognosis for Saul and his kingdom were in a very real way
expected by Saul. The witch knew this because as an adept
“psychic,” it was her job to gather, retain, and piece together
information that would aid her at being successful at her game.
Just as psychics today are fantastic gatherers of information by
paying close attention to the obvious and the subtle clues. Then,
Saul’s psychic pretty much foretold what would happen to Saul in
this instance.
What If You Had A Chance To Consult With The

President?

Let me explore an example of Cold Reading with you. Say

President Barak Obama comes to your home today and you are
being asked of him what you think is going to happen to the U. S.
of A. in the coming months or years. Being aware of world events,
bible prophecy, and biblical and contemporary historical patterns;
you might say; “Well Barak, things don’t look too good for you and
your Country. It seems that you have not been obeying God, so you
are going to find yourself in a lot of turmoil, nationally speaking,
over the next year or two. Be ready for a number of terror attacks
and don’t be surprised if there is significant civil unrest. I would
say that by this time next year Barak, you can be assured that some
of the major world powers will want to kill you.”
While you are speaking, Barak is listening intently because he
came to you expecting you to tell him some pretty unhappy things.
He actually would have been surprised had you given him a
positive prognosis for political and national health and safety.
Perhaps he came to you and you already knew some things about
him. You are aware that he has been saying he worships the God of
the Universe but has been participating in worship practices of
other faiths and doing things God does not approve of like
canceling a national day of prayer.
The President’s appearance before you is not unlike Saul
when he went to the “witch of Endor.” As with Saul, President
Obama also knew that his life and kingdom were precariously
perched on top of numerous volatile situations and anti-Biblical
practices. In fact, when you look at great world leaders in history,
like Alexander the Great and many of the Caesars during
prosperous times in their empires, they often received word from
wise people or at times from adversaries, telling them they were
soon to lose their kingdom and their life. In fact, the historical and
biblical pattern for the world’s greatest empires is always that they
fall.
Someone Always Gives A Warning Before A Kingdom

Falls
36
History and Scripture reveal that Assyria fell to Babylon, which fell
to Persia, which fell to Greece, which fell to Rome. These were all
Empires that were in the most powerful and advantageous political
and military position in the world for some time before they
plummeted from “the garden of god” so to speak. You would be
able to speak these words of foreboding and doom to President
Obama without him calling you insane because he, like Saul, knew
the signs of an impending power play that would have the
potential to alter his life and kingdom forever. President Obama
would not be stupid enough to refute the obvious any more than
Saul was with the news he received at Endor. The only difference
in you telling Barak face to face of the dismantling of all he had
built up in the coming months and years, and the situation Saul
was in with the “witch of Endor,” is that the witch used a
ventriloquist act. Her act was vital to having her message believed
by Saul. The act of pretending Samuel a Prophet of God, was raised
from his rest to speak the words, carried a memorable impact for
the fearful King who would soon fall.
Psychics Are Often Consulted By World Leaders
To the surprise of many, an astrologer was used at times to guide

to some degree, the political situations of the USA by former
leaders of the world’s most powerful nation. Do you remember an
actor and his wife by the name of Reagan? That’s right, Ronald and
Nancy Reagan. The Reagans were known to have employed the
services of a medium at times during their reign in office as
President and First Lady. While leading a nation that was
supposedly “under God,” they sought the counsel of mediums, a
practice that is taboo according to the Bible. World leaders,
seeking the input from mediums, psychics, and astrologers is not
unheard of in the past decades any more than it was in the history
of ancient Israel. Below is the prohibition Moses passed on to the
nation of Israel.

When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth
thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those
nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh
his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth
divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a
charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a
necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto
the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God
doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the
LORD thy God.
Deuteronomy 18:9-13 KJV
Isn’t it odd though how God abjectly states to not have any
mediums among His people but the ruler of the nation who stands
by the constitution felt it was okay to consult mediums? In the
book, “Believing in Magic, The Psychology of Superstition,”
author Stuart A. Vyse tells of the memoirs of Donald Regan
released in 1988. The memoirs contain intimate information about
the Reagan administration when Regan was the White house Chief
of Staff to President Ronald Reagan. Please pay attention to the
differences between Reagan and Regan in the following quote.
His insider view of the presidency revealed that,

over a seven-year period, First Lady Nancy
Reagan had employed an astrologer to advise
her on a wide range of topics, many of which
bore directly on the affairs of the state.
According to Regan, “Virtually every major
move and decision the Reagan’s made during my
time as White House Chief of Staff was cleared
in advance with a woman in San Francisco who
drew up horoscopes to make certain that the
planets were in a favorable alignment for the
enterprise.” 1 He claimed that Mrs. Reagan
“insisted on being consulted on the timing of
38
every Presidential appearance and action so that

she could consult her Friend in San Francisco
about the astrological factor.” 2 Suggestions
that certain days were “bad” for the President
led to the cancellation of speeches and press
conferences and, on occasion, the curtailment of
all travel for days at a time. Regan never
discussed the issue with the President, so he
was uncertain whether Mr. Reagan knew the
extent to which his administration had been
controlled by the stars.
Vyse continues in his book to tell us that Mrs.

Reagan did admit to the regular use of an
astrologer but maintains that in using Joan
Quigley as her astrologer that “Joan’s
recommendations had nothing to do with policy
or politics.” 3 Quigley, on the other hand, claimed
that she “was heavily involved in what happened
in the relations between the superpowers,
changing Ronald Reagan’s “Evil Empire”
attitude, so that he went to Geneva prepared to
meet a different kind of Russian leader.” 4 3
1
Regan (1988) p. 3.
2
Regan (1988) p. 301.
3
Regan (1989) p. 49.
4
Quigley (1990) p.11.
The Reagan’s were not the first and will not be the last to
consult some type of medium or spiritist in an effort to have some
control of their path to the future. We find in King Saul a very
3
“Believing in Magic, The Psychology of Superstition,” by Stuart A Vyse, Copyright
1997 Oxford University Press

common thread of desire among leaders throughout history.

Leaders of Kingdoms and Empires both small and large have
sought the counsel of wise men and diviners. Kings such as the
Pharaohs of Egypt, to the leaders of the United States of America
all want to know how and when to move and act to ensure the
greatest and most profitable impact for their Kingdom. All of the
world’s greatest leaders have one advisor or more and all of them
would love to know the future if it were possible to know. I can’t
say all of these have or would employ the services of a psychic or a
medium, but I do know that King Saul did in trying to determine
his future as the King of Israel.
Before we talk further about King Saul’s visit to the woman
with the familiar spirit, we should establish according to the bible
if people who are dead, such as Samuel in this instance, are able to
communicate with those living. The entire issue of spirits being
raised from their rest is one we need to understand to move
forward in dismantling Satan. After all, Satan is invariably thought
to be able to send these spirits to aid in working out his master
plan of deception. But is this even a possibility? Do dead spirits
come back to haunt and give information to the living? These
questions can all be put to rest by answering the question…
“Where do the dead go?” A question that we will answer in the next
chapter.
40
CH AP TE R 2
Where Do The Dead Go?
If you died today, would you instantly be ushered into Heaven to

walk through the pearly gates? Think about this for a second.
Where will you go if you died today? This is not a question leading
to a pitch on how you should get right with God. Would you go to
Heaven or perhaps, if you were a wicked man would you be sent
straight to Hell to begin receiving eternal torture for being an
unregenerate fool? Or would you perhaps go to a place called
Limbo, a place of shielding from Hell that children were told they
would go if they died. A place to earn their way to a better level
believed to be Heaven. If you die suddenly does your “spirit” leave
your body and float over the operating table or car crash, while you
watch the doctors or rescuers frantically try to resuscitate you? Do
you go to a gentle business class environment, called “purgatory,”
until you have sufficiently been purged of your sins and then are
able to proceed to Heaven and enjoy the streets paved with gold?
Alternatively, do you believe the moment you die you are no longer
perceiving time or space and there is no communication from you
to anyone living or to anyone spirit, until you are resurrected?
What is the state of the dead and where do the dead go? Can we
know? More specifically, can we find out where the Bible says we
go when we die?
There is a common “Christian” teaching about life after
death, which teaches once dead, if you are righteous enough
according to the standard of their faith, you will proceed to enter a
paradise type environment in a revitalized spirit form. There you
will receive the accolades of the God of your faith and there you
CHAPTER 2 – Where Do The Dead Go? 41

will begin your eternal reward. Supposedly, at that time you are in
the presence of countless other now immortal followers of your
faith. Although this teaching is believed by billions of people, basic
Bible study on this topic will conclude that it is not a Biblical
teaching.
“Well, I never!” some of you are saying. “This guy wants to
try to tell me there is no “Satan” and now he wants me to believe
there is no Heaven!” “How could he say such a thing?”
I don’t blame you for feeling that way. I felt that way too the
first time I heard such difficult teachings. I am however not telling
you there is no Heaven; I am just telling you that you don’t get to
go there. I don’t get to go there either, in fact none of us humans
get to go there. Heaven is for Yahweh and when He finished His
role as the crucified and resurrected Messiah he ascended, forty
days after his resurrection, to resume the office of the Father from
Heaven. There is no Scripture that teaches the dead who are
righteous get to go to Heaven in any state, let alone a body of flesh.
Here is how it goes if you look at the Bible.
First of all, Heaven is not for man, it is only for God. God
manifest Himself as the Messiah in the first century so we can find
He has been in Heaven. In the book of John, the Messiah affirms
the teaching of the Scriptures that indicates Heaven is no place for
man and says;
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down

from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13 KJV
Therefore, Messiah is telling us here that there is no human

being who has ascended to Heaven. In addition, in the book of 1st
Timothy, Paul tells us Yeshua is the only one who has attained
immortality.
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can
approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be
honour and power everlasting. Amen.
1Timothy 6:16 KJV
42
How can this be you might ask. What about Elijah and
Enoch? Doesn’t the Bible say they went to Heaven? This is an
excellent question to ask, I will not go into the entire explanation
on these two Biblical characters, but I will say that neither of them
is in Heaven or the Messiah and Paul are liars. Elijah was taken up
in a whirlwind and it is erroneously believed by scholars and lay
persons alike, that he is in Heaven. The text does not indicate he is
gone in the flesh into Heaven. We are told by Paul that flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. In the context of Paul’s
dialogue, the kingdom of God is most likely referring to Heaven in
this statement.
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
1Corinthians 15:50 KJV
Certainly more proofs could be brought to the table on this

issue, proofs such as considering why the men wanted to search in
the mountains for Elijah. However, discussions of those proofs will
not take up our time here. I assure you, Elijah could not have been
taken to Heaven at any time, especially if he was still in his body of
flesh. If we take a close look at the use of the word heaven in the
passage about Elijah and the whirlwind, we will see that the word
used for “heaven” is referring to the part of the sky where birds fly.
Elisha told others about Elijah’s departure and how he saw him get
swept away into the part of the sky where the birds fly and then
those he told went searching for him. Had Elisha indicated that
Elijah had gone straight up and disappeared then why were those
who he told of the event searching for Elijah on the ground? They
were searching because they understood Elijah to have been swept
away by a great big wind and therefore might have been slammed
back to the ground in the vicinity.
The search proved unsuccessful for a reason, because either
Yahweh had swept Elijah far enough away so the search party was
not able to access the great distance, or, knowing his mantle was
passed on to Elisha, Elijah may have then traveled a distance away

of his own volition. He may have done something like this in order
to remove himself from being placed above Elisha in the ministry
God had just appointed to him through Elijah the prophet. Elisha
had been told by Elijah and others that Elijah would soon cease to
be the leader of the prophets of that period. Elijah was still present
on earth and not up in “Heaven” at all, some years after the
incident. There is evidence of a letter from Elijah, which was
delivered after the whirlwind to the sky experience, recorded in
Second Chronicles 21:12;
And there came a writing to him from Elijah the
prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy
father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of
Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah.
(emphasis added)
This letter is calculated to have been written and sent by

Elijah about 7 to 10 years after his whirlwind disappearance from
Elisha. By comparing 2nd Kings 3:1, 1st Kings 22:42, and 2nd Kings
8:16 we can find the chronology of the letter after the whirlwind
bares out. If Elijah had ascended into Heaven why then do we have
correspondence from him years after his ascension? The reason is
because Elijah was still on earth and in this instance he has written
to Jehoram, the King of Judah. Jehoram was a king who followed a
line of succession that did not obey Yahweh. Elijah cannot be used
as an example of a man going to Heaven before death in an effort
to support an afterlife philosophy adopted from mythology.
Sure But Where Do We Go When We Die?
If we don’t go to Heaven when we die and Elijah didn’t go in the

flesh to Heaven when he was swept away from Elisha in a
whirlwind, then where do we go when we’re dead? The idea of a
Heaven as a place the soul is taken the moment a person is dead, is
not a biblical concept. What has happened in order for a concept to
be developed in Christianity that claims a dead soul floats up to
Heaven once the physical body dies, is fairly easy to understand.
44
The afterlife doctrine entered Christianity because of associations

with pagan religions and their beliefs. Many who claim to be
following the Scriptures and the Messiah have accepted and in
part, reconstructed a belief from some other religion, which was
based on a mythological understanding. We can see how this
occurred as the Hebrew people left the Persian exile and adopted
much of the Persian mythology. This would have included the
place of eternal reward that was previously not part of the faith of
the “Jews.” In his book, The History of Magic, Joseph Ennemoser
tells of the dire influence of the last place of the Jewish exile;
From this last country the Jews, after their

captivity, brought magic and theurgy with the
whole Oriental demonology; that sorcery which
was so sternly forbidden by Moses, awoke in
the spirit of the medo-persic dogmatism,
through their ideas of the devils and angels,
with their various ranks, striking such deep
roots, that it was no more to be eradicated.
… That the Jewish sages transplanted the
Oriental belief in magic to Alexandria, which in
a modified state, was later spread over
Christendom, will be shown subsequently. 4
Ennemoser goes on to quote Tiedemann and speak of the

superstitious philosophy that was implanted in the faith of Israel
and then Christianity. Our present day concept of the immortal
soul of man ascending to Heaven when the physical man dies is
from the same mythological culture as the whole structure of
demonology that is prevalent today.
The short answer to the question of where we go when we are
dead is that we go nowhere. We are just dead. The common
4
Ennemoser, The History of Magic, Volume 1- page 221, 1970, University
Books Inc

Biblical definition for being dead is “asleep” or “sleeping.” If you

look through the entire Bible, you will find that one who dies is
never referred to as having his or her “spirit/soul” leave the dead
shell of a body and ascend to a place in the clouds, which we call
Heaven. When you die, you are essentially no longer the possessor
of the animating force, known as breath, from the Creator. This
animating force known as breath is also called the “spirit” by many
and is the Hebrew word ruach used in much of the Bible. When
the Creator formed Adam from the dust of the ground and then
breathed life into Adam, Adam became a living soul. What was
breathed into Adam was the animating force that can only come
from Yahweh. It was the breath of life so to speak; and without
Yahweh imparting that breath of life then Adam would have
remained at best an inanimate lump of dust formed into the shape
of a human-like clay statue. Man started as dust and if we take
notice of the curse on Adam, we will see that all men are
understood as being the same as this animated lump of dust.
Eventually we will die and return to the element we originated
from. We will not ascend to Heaven. Man, being formed from the
dust and then being told he will return to dust when he dies, is
seen in the following verses in Genesis.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul.
Genesis 2:7 KJV
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the
ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto
dust shalt thou return.
Genesis 3:19 KJV
Imagine There’s No Heaven … At Least The Way

Christians Teach
46
If you recall a much earlier discussion, we had in Volume I, Adam

and Eve were permitted to eat of the tree of life and then live
forever. That was if they obeyed Yahweh. If they had eaten of the
tree of life, they would not have been destined to return to dust.
They would have experienced a state of practical immortality that
would have allowed them to dwell in Paradise, the Garden of Eden
and the expanded world that would have extrapolated from their
procreation forever. I suppose this would have been done with
Yahweh closely participating in their lives in a more tangible sense
than what you or I are able to experience today. Alas, they ate not
of the tree of life but disobeyed and ate of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. Thus disqualifying them from
immortality very early on in their journey of life and they were
cursed, which included the edict that they would return to dust.
This is the first indication of where we go when we are dead.

We do indeed return to dust, but some might say, “The body
returns to dust and the ‘spirit’ goes to be with Jesus.” I used to
think the same thing until I took the time to see what the Bible
says about this issue and not what Christianity said about this
issue. The Bible teaches there is to be a resurrection of the dead at
two points in the future. The Torah introduces the idea of a
resurrection in Deuteronomy when Yahweh says, “I kill and I make
alive.” He is teaching us here that a person who has died can and
will be made alive again. Further to that teaching, He is teaching
us that He is the one who does the resurrecting.
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and
I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can
deliver out of my hand.
Deuteronomy 32:39 KJV
It is here that we are first informed of the resurrection of the

dead. If God makes alive, then it appears to be saying that those
who were dead can be brought to life again by Him. In the above
passage to resurrect is to being dead as healing is to wounding.

Yahweh does all these things. The resurrection is spoken about in

the Book of Daniel.
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
contempt.
Daniel 12:2 KJV
Daniel is saying there are two resurrections. Some of those

who are asleep in the dust will be resurrected unto righteousness
and others will be resurrected unto judgment to be destroyed
forever, spoken of in Daniel 12 as shame and everlasting
contempt. For the moment though, notice in Daniel that the dead
are referred to as sleeping and the fact that they are in the dust is
indication of those who are dead as not being somewhere else in
some other form. Isaiah also speaks of the dead being in the
ground and at some future point they are to be resurrected. They
will have their physical bodies that are dust, filled with life from
the Creator once again. Just as the dust that came to be Adam, was
filled with life by the breath of God.
It seems that this force of life combined with the form that is
made from the dust is what makes a living soul. The miraculous
power of the Creator is that He constructed man from dust in the
beginning and He will essentially do that again for all the dead
who have returned to dust in their graves.
Did Lazarus’ Spirit Come Back From Heaven?
Think for a moment of Lazarus. Yeshua was saddened to hear of

Lazarus’ death. And when He came on the scene to find family and
friends were mourning, He decided to resurrect Lazarus. Yeshua
said, “Lazarus come out!” Notice there was no breaking off a spirit
of death or cutting off the hold of the “devil” on his friend Lazarus
as certain prayer warriors might have done, but simply “Lazarus
come out!” What happens next to Lazarus? Well, if we adhere to
popular belief about where the dead go, then, because Lazarus is
dead and his spirit has left him to go and be with God in Heaven,
48
we could conceivably entertain that Lazarus would have been wise

to flatly refuse the offer to re-incarnate his old fleshly body. At this
point in the story, Lazarus is dead and is supposedly in Heaven
with God according to a common afterlife philosophy found in
major religions. Under that concept, Lazarus would be enjoying
eternal peace and a pain free, trouble free existence. If we adhere
to the popular belief about “Heaven,” then our dearly departed
Lazarus has already taken up residence in the Paradise of God and
is walking on streets paved with gold. Lazarus is by now, receiving
his reward for being a good and faithful servant. If we adhere to
popular beliefs about the immortal soul and where the dead go
when the physical body dies, then we are saying that Lazarus, at
least his spirit, had entered Heaven and would be reaping all the
unspeakable blessings due him from living a life pleasing to God.
Lazarus no longer desires the things of the world or flesh and is
definitely not in any way shape or form, disappointed or sad for
what he has lost by having his life here on earth end. If Heaven is
as many have come to know it, and once you die you go there and
are in the presence of Yahweh, Yeshua, and the Holy apostles, then
Lazarus would be so content and happy that he wouldn’t care to
come back and inhabit his old body. It makes no sense that
Lazarus’ soul would go to Heaven after he physically died and
began to stink, then he was told to return to his body to resume
existence as a mortal.
Think about this for a moment. Have you ever gone to a
really fun party? I mean a party where the food is great; the people
are all getting along and having excellent and stimulating
conversation. You feel like you are wanted and you don’t have to
be up for work the next morning? This party is so good that when
it comes time to leave, you just have no desire at all to head home.
But you are sent home right in the middle of a good time. Or, how
about if you’re on vacation? You’ve taken plenty of vacations
before with plenty of different travel companions but you can’t
recall a vacation that measures up to this one. This vacation has
been the best ever and you are only a week in with a full week to
go. You really reconnected with your spouse in a deep and

meaningful way. You were able to really shed all the stress of work
and home life and in the past three or four days of the dream
vacation, you have found you were able to totally relax. I don’t
mean you are still running here and there to visit people and see
tourist attractions, I mean it is just total relaxation. The kind
where you don’t even say “Aahhh” anymore when you get to
recline by the pool or beach because you are in the “Aahhh” state
already before you recline. Your back and neck haven’t been stiff
for days; you didn’t even keep track of how much this vacation cost
or how much you’re spending on food every day because it is all
expenses paid by a rich dead uncle twice removed who left you a
bunch of money. Your sleep has never been better and you haven’t
even gained any weight on this paradisiacal holiday. What a
perfect vacation. There is nothing in you that wants to go home but
all of a sudden, days before your supposed to pack up and head
out, you are told by your dead uncle’s lawyer that you must end the
vacation right now and head home. The reason why is something
to do with the surviving aunt of the dead uncle twice removed, but
it is out of your control and you need to head home. Bam! Just like
that… home to be thrust right back into life… complaints, bills,
work, frustrating relationships, waking up to the alarm clock every
morning. It’s like being smacked in the head with a two by four
when you’re not expecting it, vacation ended, paradise is ripped
away from you in an instant. All the peace and calm you felt is
immediately gone and you are now back in “go” mode. Just like
that, back you go.
Hmmm… sounds like an awful experience.
Are you able to see Lazarus in this type of canceled dream
vacation position? Beside the fact we would be saying Lazarus was
given the reward of Heaven and then it was removed from him to
be placed back on the Earth, we are claiming something else.
When we say a person such as Lazarus has died and their spirit has
left them to go to Heaven, and we then suggest the spirit has been
put back into them, then we are endorsing a form of reincarnation.
I find it difficult to believe that Yahweh decided to re-
incarnate Lazarus after Lazarus had become an immortal spirit
50
being by dying and going to Heaven. It doesn’t seem to be the case

that Lazarus was forced back into a corruptible human body once
he had been in Glory. This is a doctrine known as The Immortal
Soul Doctrine. The Immortal Soul Doctrine claims we go to
Heaven in some type of spirit form when we die. It is a bankrupt
doctrine, which does not come from the Scripture, just like so
many of the doctrines of man common to Christianity. The
Scriptures teach that the dead are in an unconscious state of
physical existence until the resurrection.
Dead Until The Resurrection
Yeshua chastised the Sadducees for not believing there is a future

resurrection. By his own death and bodily resurrection, He proved
that a resurrection of the flesh was possible. This resurrection is
contested by many scholars today but one can only apply
conjecture to their beliefs as there is “proof” on both sides of the
resurrection debate. Debate has proliferated for centuries. Paul the
apostle pitted the Pharisees against the Sadducees at one time
based on their differing opinions of the possibility of a
resurrection. The Pharisees, of whom not all were bad, believed in
a future resurrection and the Sadducees did not. These were just
two different groups of religious “Jews” which were around at the
time of Messiah in the first century. Many diverse groups
fashioned their own style of worship and interpretation of the
Scriptures. Yeshua agreed with all of them… Yeshua also disagreed
with all of them. Yeshua, while walking the Earth, agreed with all
religious groups or persons on points that were in fact correct, but
on those points that were not true and correct, He passionately
disagreed. Herein lays an example from the King of the Universe,
an example of taking or agreeing with truth no matter where it
comes from. Yeshua was at least familiar with a handful of sects
such as the Herodians, Essenes, Zealots, (one of his disciples was
Simon the Zealot) Sadducees, and Pharisees. None of these
“official” sects were in line with Yeshua and his message that

fulfilled the Torah, but all of them had some truth. Agreeing with
that which agrees with the Scriptures and comes from an
unsavoury source is admirable and Yeshua-like. Many today
choose to not hear or believe anything that is claimed to be truth, if
they are not in total agreement on every doctrine with that
particular group or person. This leads to sectarianism, which
damages the message of the Kingdom rather than aid the correct
and eternally productive dispensation of the truth. The Proverbs
tell us to pursue truth. The message that comes out of the
Messiah’s modeling is that we can take truth from any source, as
long as we don’t begin following the source that we took the truth
from.
As for Lazarus, he was simply “asleep,” which is dead with no
concept of time or space or sense of existing at all. When the
Messiah decided to resurrect him, He placed the force of life back
in Lazarus. He did not call back Lazarus’ spirit from Heaven, as
one must believe when accepting the Immortal Soul Doctrine. The
miracle of this healing was largely that the body of Lazarus was in
the tomb for four days and would have been decomposing. The
resurrection of the dead that the Messiah is able to cause to
happen, overcomes decomposition of the physical body. Lazarus
could not have been simply in a catatonic state for four days
because as was well known, decomposition would have been
happening and in the case of this recently “sleeping” human,
decomposition is absolutely equivalent with being literally dead for
at least four days. Science today confirms that putrefaction of the
dead body begins to occur after four days of the bacterial
transition and enzymatic response.
Dead means dead. It does not mean the soul leaves the body
and the dead one becomes immortal through the process of death
as the pagan concept claims. Look at what one of the Eastern
doctrines of the dead believes to happen after death. The following
excerpt is from the tenets of Zarathustra and explains the
procedure for burial and the spiritual state of the “soul” after
death. The tenet or practice is called DAHKMA-NASHINI. In
reading the following, you will see that a very specifically outlined
52
process for those entering the afterlife was formed by the

Zoroastrians.
A connection to this idea by the Hebrew exiles was a big part
of the Immortal Soul Doctrine that migrated into Judaism and
Christianity. I see no need to comment on the process as I feel it is
clear enough for the reader and I have commented sufficiently
already in Volume I on the adoption of pagan after-life ideas by
Jews and Christians;
The Zoroastrian Dakhma-nashini mode of disposal of the

dead
In response to a request for information on the

Zoroastrian mode of disposal of the dead, here
is a brief description of this ancient process,
called
DAHKMA-NASHINI - ie. utter destruction of the

dead body which is considered most unhygienic
and polluting, both physically and spiritually…
After a human being dies, according to the

Vendidad (ancient scripture of the Zoroastrians)
- the evil spirit of putrefaction rushes on the
dead body within about three hours after death.
After this time, the dead body cannot be
touched by anybody except special corpse
bearers who live apart from the rest of society.
Spiritually and physically, the dead body is most
unclean at this time. The body is now bathed in
the urine (Taro) of a special white bull - again

an ancient Indo-European or Aryan method of

purification.
The abhorrence the ancient Aryans had for the

dead body and its polluting influence is stressed
at every step of this ancient ritual. The special
corpse bearers now put the corpse on a marble
stone. Fire is kept alongside burning with
sandalwood, and a Diva (lamp) is also lighted.
The Dastur (Zoroastrian fire-priest) now comes
and intones special prayers.
By the evening or the morning of the next day,

the Dasturs (priests) pray the GEH-SARNA
ceremony. The soul wanders near the body for
the first three days and is as a new-born child,
very susceptible to the attack of evil spirits.
The Geh-Sarna ceremony strengthens the soul
and helps it to proceed on its way - it is a well
known fact that there have never been any
ghosts of Zoroastrians because of the powerful
effects of the ancient Avestan Mathras (verses
of prayer). In fact no pregnant woman is allowed
to be present near the Geh-Sarna ceremony
because of the fear that the powerful
incantations may have an adverse effect on the
unborn child ie. the soul that has recently
attached to the child in the womb and is waiting
to be born. Such is the power of the Aryan
Avestan prayers.
54
The members of the household then say

goodbye to the departed for the last time
(without touching the body). The corpse bearers
then carry away the body on a special iron bier
(iron and stone cannot be polluted, wood can)
from the prayer rooms and prepare for its final
destruction.
The soul is then judged by the divinity Mithra

(Meher) and either passes on to Garodman, the
abode of songs where Ahura Mazda (God)
awaits him or to drujo-deman, the abode of the
evil one. There the soul waits until it is time for
the Resurrection of all the dead and the final
defeat and expulsion of evil from THIS world,
when death and disease and hunger and thirst
will be a thing of the past and God Himself will
come down to the earth, assisted by the final
Saviour (Saoshyant.) 5
It is not possible to reject equating this pagan Zoroastrian

philosophy with many of the practices and beliefs regarding the
treatment of the dead that are found in contemporary Christianity.
A concept that preceded Christianity by hundreds of years has far
too many parallels to Christianity to be overlooked as a major
source affecting Christianity’s doctrines. The Scriptural facts are
this; when one dies they do not go to a spirit world of reward or a
paradise, they go to sleep until they are resurrected by the Creator.
Spiritual and physical life is completely gone from them until life is
returned to them by God.
5
The Zoroastrian Dakhma-nashini mode of disposal of the dead
http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/dakhma33.html

How does all this discussion about the whereabouts of the

dead play into the King Saul and the witch of Endor story? Simply
put, if the pagan doctrine of a person becoming a “spirit” at death
is not true, then Samuel could not be raised from the grave by the
witch. As we have seen, in the witch of Endor story, Samuel
supposedly is able to appear in spirit form. If this were so then his
appearance would be in line with the pagan belief that an
enhancement of his spiritual power takes place after death. The
variety of the Immortal Soul Doctrine seen here then leads us to
believe that by dying a person gets more powerful not less. The
facts are as they appear in the Scriptures about the dead and in
fact are quite simple, so I will not cloud the simplicity of where the
dead go. The Scriptures simply say of the dead that they do not
think, speak, praise, or hear. The following verses put it quite
concisely;
Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they
arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the
dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.
Isaiah 26:19 KJV
There are verses in Ecclesiastes that provide some teaching as to

what goes on for the dead;
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall
return unto God who gave it.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 KJV
The term, “spirit” is not telling of an intangible, ghost-like part of

the human composition. We are being told that the God who gave
breath now takes it away. Elsewhere in Ecclesiastes, we are told
that the dead are clueless to any existence at all.
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any
thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them
is forgotten.
56
The dead do not know anything according to Solomon.

Therefore, a wicked person who dies will not be subjected to a
tormented soul where they feel the anguish of an eternal absence
from their Creator. We are given further testimony by Solomon as
to the absence of any thought when we die, in this verse;
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is
no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave,
whither thou goest.
Solomon tells us there is no knowledge or wisdom in the

grave. The grave here is the Hebrew word “sheol” and has been
translated as “hell,” “grave,” and “pit.” Being “dead” means to go to
Hell, and this means to be buried in the grave, which is the pit and
is called Sheol. Being said to be in the grave or the pit does not
mean a person goes somewhere in spirit form or in flesh form,
rather it is understood as speaking of someone who is simply going
to decompose and to become dust again until the resurrection. The
first resurrection at Messiah’s return is for those who are the
righteous according to His judgment and the second resurrection
is for the wicked dead who will be destroyed from Yahweh’s
presence forever. Paul talks about the punishment of the wicked
and the book of Revelation gives us insight into the two
resurrections with the second resurrection culminating in the final
death, known as the “second death,” for those who are relegated to
that resurrection.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Revelation 2:11 KJV
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on

such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God
and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Revelation 20:6 KJV

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
death.
Revelation 20:14 KJV
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and

murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all
liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 21:8 KJV
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and
that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 KJV
When We All Get To Hell… What A Day of Nothing That Will

Be
Honestly, it is quite simple to find from studying the Scriptures

that Hell is simply the grave and when we die, we all go to Hell, the
grave. According to Scripture, those who do not agree with God
receive the punishment of never existing again in any form. One
teacher I listened to emphasized, somewhat for shock value
perhaps, how everyone who dies goes to Hell and even Jesus was
in Hell for three days. Hell simply means you are dead and not
able to know anything. Also, contrary to popular belief, when we
die we do not go to some party environment called Heaven, where
we would undoubtedly be praising Yahweh. The Psalms tell us of
the lack of this type of spiritual existence when dead. Here we are
also told it is Earth that is given to men to inhabit. Messiah told us
the meek shall inherit the Earth, not the Heaven. Revelation 21
shows us the throne of God coming to Earth where He will dwell
with men as opposed to men going up to dwell with him. This is
after the resurrections have taken place and the wicked have been
destroyed from His presence forever, as Paul puts it in
Thessalonians above.
58
The following passages tell that Heaven is where the Lord

and the Lord only is, and also those who are dead are not able to
praise the Lord because death is to be nonexistent, until the
resurrection takes place. The understanding to be had regarding
this passage in Psalms is that once dead, a person cannot
participate in any conscious activity. Such would be the case if the
Immortal Soul Doctrine were true and they had died and had
ascended to a heavenly place where they are thought to be praising
God before His throne. The following quote from Revelation
informs the hearer that because Heaven is God’s abode, He will
eventually come and dwell among men here on Earth. The intent I
suppose, was that He was to be dwelling among men in Eden, but
has waited until the end of days when wickedness has been
completely suppressed. At that time, Yahweh will fulfill the plan to
dwell on a paradisiacal Earth with His children. The point is,
Heaven comes down and no one goes up to Heaven.
The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he
given to the children of men.
The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
Psalms 115:16-17 KJV
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and
the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from
God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the
tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they
shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their
God.
Revelation 21:1-3 KJV
According to the above verses, Heaven is Yahweh’s and the

Earth is for man to inhabit. When the final enemy, which is death
for humans, is defeated and tossed into the burning lake of fire,
then there will be no more death. All who were ever conscripted to
die are now dead and there are no more who will be assigned to die
physically; thus there will not be any more death at that time.

Death has effectively been conquered. The metaphor for eternal

death is used by the writer of Revelation when he says that death is
“tossed into the lake of fire.” The famous lake of fire, where it is
imagined the unrighteous go to experience eternal torture from
the burning sulfur, doesn’t literally exist. This feared location is
just another well-used metaphor understood to express the
completion of life at ccccdeath. By death being “thrown into the
lake of fire,” we are taught that death will not be present anymore
because all who are alive at that point will never die. A few
passages from Revelation will help to comprehend that there are
some who will not be affected by the second death. The second
death is the last time death will be administered and that gets
humanity to the place in God’s plan where “death no longer has a
sting” because it is thrown into the lake of fire.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Revelation 2:11 KJV

Revelation 20:6 KJV
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
death.
Revelation 20:14 KJV
The writers of the New Testament realized that Yahweh

comes to re-inhabit the Earth with the remnant of the seed of
Yeshua. That remnant is now immortal, as is seen by the metaphor
of “eating of the tree of life” found in Revelation 22:14.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have
right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the
city.
60
The Dead Don’t Know Anything
Understanding the Scriptures and the “New Testament,” we are

able to see that if one dies, they are now oblivious to any existence
until a resurrection occurs. They are in the grave until a
resurrection occurs and they are not able to know anything, unless
there is a miraculous resurrection such as in the case of Lazarus.
Otherwise, they stay dead and “asleep” until the appointed time of
the last trumpet.
When Is The Resurrection?
The last trumpet will be when Messiah resurrects the righteous

dead. I suppose if you could be looking for the time of the last
trumpet, you may get a handle on the timing of Christ’s return. A
little clue we are given comes through understanding that at the
end of the Biblical year, on God’s calendar, there is a trumpet
blown. This annual blast has been known as the “last trump.” This
trumpet sounds at the end of a year and marks the beginning of
the next spiritual year. Lost to most of us because of anti-Semitism
in some measure, small or great, many refuse to seek
understanding of the Biblical festivals because they are perceived
to be “Jewish” holy-days (holidays). If we look at Leviticus 23, we
will see they are not the festivals of the Jews as they came to be
believed to be in the post-exilic period, and into the “New
Testament”. They are God’s festivals. Leviticus 23 says of these
festivals; “These are the feasts of Yahweh.” If you or I are obedient
to God and believe in the Messiah at the point of our physical
death, we are then considered to be “dead in Christ.” We then will
be resurrected on the Last Trump, which is the Festival of
Trumpets also known as Rosh Hashanah, a holiday celebrated and
preserved by the Jews.
The Jews typically celebrate this holiday according to a
calendar that began to be codified in the 2nd century by a bunch of
rabbis desiring to establish festival-keeping unity. This calendar
continued to evolve until the 10th Century CE, according to a

thorough and highly informative book by Sacha Stern. Stern’s

book called; Calendar and Community, A History of the Jewish
Calendar- 2nd Century BCE to 10th Century CE, traces the
development of the Jewish calendar from its origins until it
reached its present form in the 10th century CE. Yahweh though
has stated this festival is to be kept on the first day of the seventh
“new moon,” which is the first visible crescent after the sixth
month ends. This festival is the Last Trumpet and has long been
understood to be a day of resurrection.
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in

the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of
blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation.
Leviticus 23:24 KJV
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the

trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and
we shall be changed.
Even after reading clear language about the resurrection,

some conclude that there is no resurrection of the dead? The
uniformed surmise that the spirits of the dead are somehow
released from their bodies to float to Heaven, remaining there
where they dwell in perfection for eternity. Some suggest the spirit
will be in heaven for a short time until it is then placed back into
its respective body. We will discuss more in a moment about
where this pagan belief came from, but note the words of Messiah
regarding this topic. He knew of a resurrection that would
preclude the necessity for spirits of the dead to be taken to Heaven
and then sent back to re-inhabit a physical body.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the
resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation.
John 5:28-29 KJV
62
If Going To Heaven Is Not In The Bible, Then Where Did

This Idea Come From?
I have mentioned where the “spirit living in heaven” concept

comes from several times, but now we will look at the origins of
this concept a little more closely.
By now you will not be surprised at the answer so I will keep

it brief. It is well known that ancient cultures such as the Egyptians
went to great length to prepare their dead for the afterlife. Of the
Pharaohs and rulers, it was thought that these elite were Gods.
Upon their death, they would be transferred into the spirit world.
Once there they would maintain at least the measure of power that
they held on Earth, and for many of the cases it was believed the
“god” would sit alongside the other gods of the cosmos known as
the “council of the gods.” Sitting among the other Gods, they
would be granted an even greater measure of power. In a quest to
establish that life does not end once one dies, the ancient peoples
continued to purport the myth of an immortal soul concept, which
allowed them comfort when one of their own died. They took
comfort in the idea that their king, father, husband, or child for
instance, was not really gone but merely gone from the physicality
of their body of flesh.
In that concept, an ancient believer of myth could reason that
the one they lost to physical death is now better off. They would
consider them as greater in power and abilities to affect the Earth
because of their newly acquired status as a cosmic spirit. The belief
in the afterlife experience is diverse and most cultures posit some
manner of representing where the spirits of the dead go upon their
demise. The present thinking about this in Christianity is a
combination of numerous beliefs from various ancient cultures. In
an article on the idea of spirit existence after death we read;
In ancient Egypt, cosmic order and justice

(ma'at) prevailed, but it could be temporarily

distorted by human evil. The ka (spirit of the

dead person) descends into the underworld to
be judged by the gods (specifically Anubis). The
unjust were tormented in scorching heat, while
those living in accordance with ma'at rose into
the eternal realm of the gods. Ancient
Mesopotamian religion had little idea of heaven:
The dead were doomed to unending gloom and
wretchedness in the darkness beneath the earth,
with the dubious consolation that the rich and
powerful in earthly life would have a less
miserable status in the afterlife.
In early Greco-Roman religion, the souls of the

dead descended to the shadowy underworld of
Hades; later, the spirits of heroes were believed
to escape that fate and to rise instead into the
Elysian Fields, which were variously located in
an earthly garden, a mysterious "land" to the
West, or among the stars. Elysium, wherever
located, was a place of fulfillment of earthly
delights. Greco-Roman philosophers focused on
the virtue of intellect and on the perfect world
of ideas, toward which humans attempt to strive
but can never attain. Perfect being was always
beyond human reach; still, Plato argued for the
immortality of the soul, which consisted of a
combination of the basic life force common to
all creatures with mind (nous), which was
unique to humans. Plato tended to view the
fields of heaven as a temporary abode for the
soul before it returned to the earth in a
64
reincarnation. The cycle of reincarnation ended

with the purification of the soul—losing its
bodily needs and desires—and its final union
with Being itself. Cicero (106–43 B.C.E.), the
great Roman lawyer, linked the divine with
justice and saw Elysium as a reward for those
who served the Roman state. The Later
Platonists of the third to fifth centuries C.E.
taught that everything in the cosmos yearns for
such union and that everything, once elevated
beyond matter into pure spirit, will eventually
attain that happy end.6
Going to Heaven when one dies is not a concept taught in the

Bible. This concept was added to an evolving Hebrew faith by post
Babylonian Jews, which had already been affected by syncretism
because of the close relationship with their exile host. This ancient
concept, which was found in Egypt as well as in many ancient
cultures, found its way into Christianity via the path of postexilic
Judaism. The Egyptian book of the dead quoted below, makes
reference to the “afterlife” numerous times and tells of the special
position of the dead who are judged worthy to attain to the
afterlife.
If this Chapter be recited for him he shall never,

never perish, and he shall become a living soul
for ever. These torches shall make the Spirit-
soul to flourish like Osiris Khenti- Amenti,
regularly and continually for ever. It is a
struggle.
6
From article titled Heaven in the Encyclopedia of Death and Dying,
http://www.deathreference.com/Gi-Ho/Heaven.html

When this ceremony hath been performed for

the deceased, the gods, and the Spirit-souls,
and the dead shall see him in the form of
Khenti-Amenti, and he shall have power and
dominion like this god.
If thou shalt undertake to perform for the

deceased that which is ordered in this "Chapter
of the four blazing torches," each day, thou shalt
cause the form of the deceased to come forth
from every hall [in the Tuat], and from the
Seven Halls of Osiris. And he shall live in the
form of the God.7
Called by the Egyptians, “The Book of Going Forth,” the

Books of the Dead came to be known as such in 1842 by German
Egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius, who published a selection of
the texts. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, like similar documents
from other nations, constituted a collection of spells, charms,
passwords, numbers, and magical formulae used to guide the dead
through their afterlife journey where they might encounter diverse
trial as residents of the underworld. Happiness could be achieved
by the dead if they possessed knowledge of the appropriate spells.
This concept migrated into the religion of Judaism and took on
still more depth as it was expanded and firmly planted in the
Christian religion by Greek thinkers of the first and early
centuries. The non-Hebraic thinking, first century leaders of
religion tended to spiritualize almost everything that appeared in
the Scriptures. Not comprehending correctly the faith of the nation
of Israel, caused them to attach their own version of most stories
7
THE PAPYRUS OF ANI 1240 BC,”THE EGYPTIAN BOOK OF THE DEAD”
Translated by E.A. Wallis Budge
66
to the faith that became Christianity. A belief in the afterlife known

as an Immortal Soul Doctrine was an integral error that lead these
early philosophical theologians to design spiritualistic concepts,
deeply embedding them into the Christian theology. These ideas
were their responses to other misunderstood biblical teachings but
were based on the belief in the immortal soul. The development of
“false teachings” became the norm for a culture that had already
come to believe in an Immortal Soul Doctrine. For instance, belief
in an Immortal Soul Doctrine that says the human soul continues
to exist in the presence of God after the physical body dies,
precipitated the need to develop a doctrine that describes or
teaches about Heaven and Hell. After all, if it was being taught that
you don’t really die when you physically expire but your
personality lives on, there had to be some place for you to go. If
“the soul” continues to exist in some conscious form as was
claimed then the teachers had to find a teaching to explain where
the personality goes after physical expiration.
The biblical teaching on the resurrection and the “sleeping”
dead, who are unaware of the passage of time, was not a
comfortable concept to accept for many who hoped for “glory” in
the spirit-world after death. The development of the Immortal
Soul concept and a deep belief in Heaven and Hell played a key
part in the removal of logic from the process of understanding the
Bible. Theological developments became “theo-spiritual,” in a
sense with a mystical twist. The long and short of it is, these
teachers didn’t understand what happened to dead people so they
made up their own doctrine from their convoluted understanding.
The teachings became unattainable as far as understanding them
on the simple level that they were given to the original hearers of
the Scriptures, Gospels, and Letters. A theo-spiritual concept
would be one that has an intangible quality to it because it is
derived out of the imaginations of men. Men who were confused
by the concrete theology of the Hebrew Scriptures and therefore
they added mystical elements to the spiritual message of the
Scriptures.

Why Is Logic Missing From Theology?
It is interesting how the word “logical” is the last part of the word
“theological” yet logic seems conspicuously absent from many of
the theological positions of the “Church Fathers” and church
leaders today. Perhaps we could call it theo-absurdity? Should
there not be logic in the operations of the Universe? After all, if
Yahweh wanted his words to be understood by simple folk and not
just interpreted by the ancient scholars, wouldn’t it stand to reason
that logic is a major component of His words? It is tragic though
that we are at a place in history where we have come so far from
understanding the true intent and meaning of God’s word, that we
believe it is correct exegesis to understand our English translations
in a literal manner as the words before us are presented. We need
to remember we are reading a Bible that is written with the
thousands of years-old hearer in mind. We absolutely must
attempt to look at it from that perspective. It is almost as if the
“Bible” as it is presented to us in English coupled with the deep-
seated doctrines falsely taught by Christianity and Jews through
the last couple of thousand years, is not understandable anymore.
I suppose that identifies the need to once again be Bereans and
search out a matter as the men of Berea in Acts 17 did when Paul
was teaching about the Messiah.
One thing is for sure, I don’t want you to just believe me; but
it is my desire that you find out what the “Bible” says and believe
it. By studying we can then find such things as; Lazarus was not re-
incarnated but was “asleep,” and Elijah was not taken up alive into
Heaven but was swept away by a whirlwind only to resurface later
by way of a letter to Jehoram the apostate king of Judah. We also
see that there are two resurrections and according to Revelation
20, they are a thousand years apart.
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were
finished. This is the first resurrection.
68
Revelation 20:5-6 KJV
From study of the resurrection, we can learn that once the

second death is complete there will be no more death and those
remaining will live forever from that point on. We are also able to
understand that no one goes to Heaven except the son of man,
Yeshua. No human can approach that light where God dwells and
no one has ascended to heaven yet.
1 Timothy 6:16
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no
man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can
see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
This being true we must yet account for Enoch who was
“translated” according to the “Bible.”
Didn’t Enoch Go To Heaven While He Was Living?
It is believed by some that when the Bible says Enoch was

“translated,” it means that he has been taken to Heaven in his
physical body before he died.
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was
not found, because God had translated him: for before his
translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Hebrews 11:5 KJV
Once again, we find an apparent contradiction. We are told

that no flesh can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven and that only
Messiah has entered into Heaven, but it appears we are also told
Enoch was taken to Heaven for being such a good guy by the way
he “walked with God.” No worries, you don’t have to toss out your
“Bible” because it seems to contradict itself. The fact that the Book
of Genesis says God took Enoch need not confuse us.
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Genesis 5:24 KJV
This does not have to mean that Yahweh snatched this

special servant up to His throne while Enoch was yet alive. In the
verses leading up to the statement of Enoch being “took” by God,
we see a list of patriarchs. The list is telling us how long each of
them lived. The term “And all the days…” indicates the death of
the person happened at the end of so many years of life. No one
still living would be talked about by the writer saying, “And all the
days of so and so’s life were…” The writer would not use that term
for Enoch if he were still alive after being taken up to Heaven in
his physical body. Genesis chapter 5 contains this term often in
reference to how old the Patriarchs were when they died. Here is a
sampling of the use of the term, “And all the days…” seen in
Genesis.
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty
years: and he died.
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and
he died.
11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and
he died.
14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and
he died.
17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and
five years: and he died.
20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two
years: and he died.
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five
years:
Seeing how “all the days” is a clear Hebraism speaking of how old
the patriarch was when he died we are able to line this up with
what is said in the book of Hebrews and see that Enoch did in fact
die. The one difference between Enoch’s story and the other
patriarchs is that God took Enoch instead of the text saying “and
he died.” This is reconciled by understanding that for God to take a
70
person in this context simply indicates the person’s life was cut
short. Enoch did not live a “full” life as the other patriarchs. He
had his life cut short by someone or something and did not die of
old age as the other patriarchs had. We might use the same
terminology of a baby who died shortly after birth; “She lived for
three days and then God took her.” Perhaps Enoch was murdered
and that is the reason we hear that God took him. The assessment
of Enoch’s demise reads like this;
Genesis 5:24 KJVA

And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took
him.
The Writer Of Hebrews Says Enoch Died
When the writer of Hebrews testifies to the faith of a number of

the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, he or she is careful to wrap up the
segment by saying they all died. This is no mistake. The writer
knew all these had died and did not confuse Enoch with the rest of
the patriarchs. The writer knew Enoch was no different from any
other human and he too died as all humans do. The writer of
Hebrews was not lying when he or she included Enoch in the list of
those who had died not having received the promise but only
seeing it afar off. Enoch could not have ascended to Heaven as a
man of flesh, the writer of Hebrews would have known this as
acutely as Enoch himself would have known. Heaven is the abode
of Yahweh and man will die here on Earth. Then when resurrected,
man will be assigned an appropriate place in the paradise on
Earth. That is if one is blessed to attain to the first resurrection.
The writer of Hebrews closes the testimony about the patriarchs by
telling us they all died. All of them dying would include Enoch,
who was one of those named in the writer’s list.
These all died in faith [including Enoch], not having received the
promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of

them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers
and pilgrims on the earth.
Hebrew 11:13 KJV (addition in brackets is mine)
The solution to the problem may be that Enoch’s life was

taken at a very young age compared to the other pre-flood
patriarchs. A connection is made by some that the seventh from
Adam, Lamech, might have been the killer of Enoch. We can see
an allusion to this when he speaks to his wives and says;
And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye
wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to
my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
Genesis 4:23
This is still just a theory but to be sure, Enoch would have

been seen as a young man to Lamech and having his life taken at
such a young age relatively speaking, could be what is intended by
the phrase, “God took him.” In fact, it is common in obituaries
today to speak of someone dying at a young age by using the
phrase, “God took him.”
What It Might Be Like To Be “Dead”
We are able to understand through listening to the Scriptures that

once someone is dead they are no longer able to think, or speak, or
praise, or know anything. For a dead person to communicate with
the living is not possible. When one dies, they are left in the
“sleeping” state and when awakened at the resurrection will not
have perceived any passage of time.
Do you ever remember being on a long drive with your family
when you were around three or four years old? How about if you
are a parent of a three or four year old and are taking a long drive
into the late evening on the highway with your little one. Perhaps
the scenario goes a little like this;
72
As you pack the kids into the car you snuggle them into their
car seats with their fuzzy, warm blankie tucked in beside their
head. Your little sweetie is already in his jammies and has had a
busy day visiting his cousins and grandparents a couple of hours
from home. The little guy is a tad cranky now and as you’re
reaching around him to do up his seatbelt you watch him as he
rubs his tired eyes. So you say to him, “Are you tired sweetie?”
“I’m not tired mommy,” comes the reply.
“Well you look tired sweetie so you just go ahead and go to sleep,
before you know it we’ll be home and mommy will tuck you into
bed with your teddy bear as soon as we get there.”
Within minutes of leaving the curb to hit the highway, the
little honey is fast asleep. You and your spouse are tired too so you
don’t chat much on the way home but a few thoughts are shared
about the visit and the day as well as what’s going on tomorrow.
Then after two hours, you pull into the garage and get out of the
car. As you open the door of the van to carry your little, tired
trooper into the house, you can’t help but smile at how soundly
he’s sleeping. “Wouldn’t it be great to be able sleep like that,” you
think. As you unlock the house and slip in between the doors
without making too much noise, you reach over to hang your keys
on the hook and they slip from your fingers to the floor. The clatter
of keys hitting the floor wakes your little guy up and you say, “It’s
okay sweetie, were home now, just go to sleep Mommy’s gonna’
tuck you in.” Your little snoozer lifts his head and says
questioningly, “We’re home now?” then snuggles back into your
chest as you carry him to his bed. As you tuck him in bed and set
his teddy bear under his arm, you chuckle again knowing that your
little man has no clue that two hours have passed by. “It was as if
he was in a time warp,” you think, as you silently wish you could
time warp yourself to get your car unpacked and teeth brushed so
you can go to sleep. All’s well that ends well and Junior didn’t have
a clue that time had passed because he slept the whole way.
In a sense, I believe we can think of dying and being

resurrected in the future, as falling asleep in the car on a long drive

when you are four years old. One minute you are saying, “I’m not
tired,” and the next minute you have arrived at a different location
some time in the future. Reconsidering Solomon’s words, “the
dead know not anything,” teaches a lot about the state of the dead.
The wicked particularly are mentioned as being consigned to
nothingness after death but the wise know they can look forward
to a resurrection.
Dead people don’t go anywhere except to the grave and
cannot speak from that grave. No matter how ancient and sincere
an incantation to raise the dead is, the dead are unable to interact
with the living. Further testimony from Psalms and Ecclesiastes
affirms the view of the Scriptures on the teaching that a person
who dies decomposes and is known to lie in state, until the
resurrection.
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is
no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave,
whither thou goest.
His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his
thoughts perish.
Psalms 146:4 KJV
Understanding where dead people go is just part of

understanding the witch of Endor story. If a person’s spirit is not
able to communicate with the living, then what is thought by some
to be an appearance of the Prophet Samuel from beyond the grave
could not have been an actual manifestation of the spirit of a dead
man. To understand further what transpired between Saul and the
fortune-teller of Endor, we also need to discuss the practice of
psychics and mediums. This ancient art of necromancy is a
practice that presents the illusion of the presence of a dead
person’s spirit. Exploring ancient and present reflections on
psychics and mediums will be of great value to help us to come to a
better understanding about this very tricky bit of deception. We
will take a close look at more of this story in the next chapter.
74

76
CH AP TE R 3
Can Satan Give Psychic Power?
The Psychic has long been a mystic sought after by individuals and
nations to obtain information about their future. The present
trend in many cultures, particularly in the North American
culture, to seek the input of a spiritual advisor is significant. One
manner in which we are seeing this trend take shape is through the
use of a psychic. And often the psychic is the character that leads
the charge in giving counsel and predicting the future.
We spoke earlier of the Reagan’s use of renowned astrologist
Joan Quigley in their attempts to establish the path of least
resistance for the former President of the USA. Russian world
leaders have used psychics for decades and have used government
funding to develop the pseudo-science of psychics. In the 70’s the
United States had a program within the FBI, which used a type of
psychic practice in an effort to solve crimes. This program
employed a technique called “remote-viewing” and involved
stationing a special psychic person in a room with a pencil and
paper. The “remote viewer” was left to trance out and was to draw
what they saw on a piece of paper. The drawing would, at least it
was believed, aid in leading the FBI to the end of the trail where
they came to solve the crime. After a number of years and
mountains of cash spent on developing the program and training
the “remote viewers,” the program was scrapped as it was deemed
ineffective. In an interesting paper compiled to address and
explain some of the history and development of remote viewing
and the paranormal activity that is supposedly based in the human
psyche, we are told of much that is of interest in regard to this
CHAPTER 3- Can Satan Give Psychic Power? 77

field. In the paper, which in fact is a teaching aid developed at a

100 level education format, we are told this of the American and
Russian connection to the use of paranormal activities;
A spokesman for the CIA, David Christiansan

has been recently quoted as saying that "no
further U.S. research into remote viewing was
warranted.” Christiansan added, "We think the
intelligence community shouldn't pursue
research on this and that it is best left to the
private sector." According to Christiansan the
CIA had carried out research into remote
viewing from the early 1970's but had
determined it to be unpromising and dropped the
idea. The CIA program code named Stargate
was originally initiated in response to
government concerns about a possible "psychic
gap" between Russia and America. In 1972, the
Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) published a
report detailing this proposed gap in psi
research between the two countries. It was
proposed that the Soviets were undertaking psi
research that would enable them to know the
contents of top secret U.S. documents, the
movements of American troops and ships, and
the location and nature of military installations.
They claimed that they might be able to mold
the thoughts of key American military and
civilian leaders from a distance; maybe even
cause the instant death of any U.S. official at a
78
distance; and disable American military

equipment at a distance, including spacecraft.8
This program was used at a time when the cold war with
Russia was a household conversation and the USA was interested
in developing this form of metaphysical crime fighting to keep
pace with the Russians. The Russians, as I said, were heavily into
the paranormal at the government level. Russia had become
somewhat of a leader on the world stage for paranormal activity
and had much invested in the development of this branch of
information gathering. This is a branch that not only utilizes
electric impulses and sound waves to affect human cognitive
abilities, but also using the supposed supernatural skills of a
psychic or paranormal to extract or gain information which would
aid their international pursuit for world power. The program was
designed to affect thoughts and decisions made by leaders and
military personnel. Look at this excerpt from a Larry King Live
transcript in 1990;
Excerpt from Larry King Live September 12,

1990, Transcript 127.
James Mills, author of The Power. "It is based

on a lot of research. I have three Defence
Intelligence Agency studies that are in large
measure an assessment of the Soviet threat in
this area. They say that there is a possibility
that Soviet advances in psychic weaponry would
enable them to, and there are direct quotes,
'mold the thoughts at a distance of key military
8
REMOTE VIEWING 101, MODULE SIX; THE GOVERNMENT, THE CRITICS,
AND THE FUTURE OF REMOTE VIEWING.
Paper can be viewed at;
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/catalyst/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Module6.rtf

and civilian leaders, cause the death at a

distance of key military and civilian leaders,
know the contents of top secret documents,
troop movements, locations of military
installations.' This report was produced in 1975
so this is what they were worried about then
and it makes you wonder where we have come
since then."
Remote viewing, although hailed as a paranormal activity, is

not the typical “mediumship” that claims to actually acquire
information from a dead host who speaks from beyond the grave.
Nor is it typical psychic fare that claims to acquire information
about a person’s past and future through a kind of “third eye.”
Enabling them to see what is not perceptible by the traditional
human senses allowing them to often see at different points in the
time space continuum. Government involvement at the military
level is however, a fine example of how far acceptance of and use of
the paranormal skill set has and will go. Use of psychics has been
no exception. Psychic use is prevalent in war, business,
government matters, and all areas of national and international
political activity. As with any controversial activity, there are
powerful arguments and data available to support either side.
Whether or not one concludes the use of psychics actually benefits
governments and individuals is a moot point in light of instruction
by the Creator to not engage in activities such as this. Activities
that attempt to reveal the future or gather clandestine information.
Aside from the prohibition against seeking this type of counsel
from sources other than Yahweh, we are told in Isaiah to seek God
instead of the mutterers for our guidance and direction.
Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for
signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which
dwelleth in mount Zion.
80
And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar
spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a
people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this
word, it is because there is no light in them.
Isaiah 8:18-20 KJV
To state the use of psychics is on the rise is perhaps an

understatement. Psychic practitioners and users have virtually
exploded in the past two decades. The use of psychics continues to
grow. There are more and more people every day who explore the
possibility of getting special information from a person or
organization that claims to be able to provide it. In an article by
watchman.org writer James K. Walker, we are given a few
astounding financial statistics that represent the astronomical
proportions of the “psychic phenomenon.” Take note, these are the
stats from over a decade ago but still they are a good indication of
the prolific use of fortune tellers and mediums.
[At its peak] Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends

Network employed approximately 1,500
psychics logging an estimated 3 million minutes
a month at about $4 per minute according to
Baltimore-based Inphomation Communications,
Inc. ("Who could've foretold psychic spree?"
Dallas Morning News, March 19, 1996, pp. 1-C,
6-C). According to those estimates, Warwick's
service alone would gross $144 million annually.
In addition to Warwick and Dixon, Mark Plakias,
managing director of Strategic Telemedia, a
New York research firm estimated nearly half of

the 200,000 pay-per-call entertainment

services in America are psychic hotlines9
A popular New Age magazine, Body, Mind &

Spirit, recently proclaimed that "now with a single
phone call, you can choose for yourself from
among the country's leading Master Psychics
including:
ASTROLOGERS.NUMEROLOGISTS.DREAM
INTERPRETERS TAROT CARD
READERS.CHANNELERS.PAST LIFE
THERAPISTS . CLAIRVOYANTS . AURA
READERS . and HEALERS." All of this for a mere
$3.95 per minute on a convenient 900 number
(Paul Zurmoski, ed., Body, Mind & Spirit, 1993
issues coverflap; cited in Ron Rhodes, The Culting
of America, p. 84).
The second and third largest psychic networks,

[Were at the time]Psychic Readers Network
and Your Psychic Experience, annually at about
$50 million and $35-$40 million, respectively
(ibid.).
The proliferation of psychics in our every day lives is largely a

result of the historic success of the aforementioned businesses.
There is nothing more telling as to the popularity of psychics,
mediums, and belief in supernatural abilities as is the story we get
from noting the many Television Shows and movies that entertain
9
Psychics" Profile, The Watchman Expositor, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1997). Psychic
Friends Network Declares Bankruptcy
Interestingly, the most prominent of the psychic "hotlines," The Psychic Friends
Network hosted by Dionne Warwick, recently filed for bankruptcy.
82
us today. Below is a brief list indicating the popularity of this

modernized charlatanry.
A Small Sampling Of Psychic Television Shows
Psychic Detectives, Psychic Witness, Psychic

Investigators, Medium, Ghost Whisperer,
Haunting Evidence, The 4400, The Dead Zone,
Millennium
It becomes very clear very quickly that people want to know

their future and they want to know their dead loved ones are not
suffering in the afterlife. The use of psychics and mediums has
been standard fare throughout known history. World leaders have
been the user most likely to gain by acquiring foreknowledge of an
event. It is hardly a surprising fact to see that a king with no
answers from his God would seek out the services of a woman with
a familiar spirit as Saul did in his time of distress. But did this
woman access obscure info from the spirit realm or did she simply
pull off a standard Cold Read?
What Is Cold Reading?
Without going into all the emotional and psychological reasons

why so many citizens of this world are inclined to pay for a
psychic’s services, let’s talk about the art of Cold Reading. Cold
Reading is a technique used by every psychic in the world. Some
use it intentionally and others use it intuitively. One thing is for
sure, anyone who desires to become a “psychic” could practice the
skills found in the art of Cold Reading and perform the same act as
a renowned psychic. There are many available resources to aid in
teaching the art of “reading.” And there are many views on both
sides of the argument as to the validity and truth of many
paranormal readers and readings. After assessing volumes of

information from both sides of the psychic coin, I have decided to

agree with those who have researched the psychic fraud and
determined it is just a very profound form of manipulation via the
application of a very refined set of skills. The skills of a psychic
involve the highly tuned intuition of the “psychic” coupled with
excellent questioning, listening, and memory skills. It is also seen
that the participant plays a major participatory role in the psychic
act through their willingness to believe they are hearing “psychic”
information or by unwittingly divulging information via verbal or
physical clues. Clues such as a head-nod or pupillary response to a
question, perhaps skin tone, or posture are taken into account.
Whether they are “hot,” meaning the psychic is given information
by the participant previous to the encounter, or they are “cold,”
meaning the psychic is not knowingly given information by the
participant, a reading still employs the same core skills. Psychic
readings are always done by brilliantly extracting information
from the participant, which is used to build their psychic reading.
This performance can be completed whether or not the participant
is physically present as is exampled by an online reading or a
telephone reading. The participant often confirms the psychic’s
reading simply because they want to be read correctly. The
participant desires to believe in the powers of the psychic
otherwise they would not subject themselves to the imposition by a
stranger.
Another method of providing readings is to throw out very
general statements that would easily fit into most people’s lives,
simply by the laws of probability. A “psychic” uses their intuition
to glean information about the participant and the participant
feeds back the affirmation, supplying more information to the
psychic. In many cases, the “psychic” uses common information
that would be available to anyone who was attentive enough to the
participant. This is particularly true of a psychic consulting with a
well-known person or persons of power.
As we discussed earlier, it would be easy to give someone like
Barak Obama a “reading.” It would seem there is so much
information available about the man that one could easily speak
84
into his life and claim they are being a psychic, while all the while
not telling him anything that is not common to most educated
people. The big issue here would be whether or not Obama wanted
to believe you are a psychic and to believe he is receiving valuable
information that is a result of paranormal activity. It is always left
up to the “sitter” to decide if you or I as a psychic are legit. Most
people who choose to use a psychic or medium are already leaning
to believing they are legit because they are choosing to invest their
time and money into the encounter with the paranormal.
Below is some information about psychic readings that is

very plausible and helps to answer some of the questions about the
validity of this trade. The information presented here has aided in
coming to the conclusion I have come to. I am not asking you to
grab hold of my conclusion and run with it, I am asking you to
honestly question the practice of psychics based on looking at the
ideas and research available regarding the trade. You may not care
whether psychics are real or not, however, one may find him or
herself better understanding the God of the Universe when they
are able to dismiss psychics as purveyors of privileged
information. Purveyors of information that is said to only be
available through the supernatural means of a paranormal. If we
are inclined to think the practice is a harmless act that doesn’t
really affect anyone negatively, then we miss a very important
violation that takes place at the hands of the psychic. The psychic
has no regard for the truth. They desecrate truth and often distort
memories of loved ones in order to have you believe they are a legit
psychic with power to foretell the future, envision your past, and
bring messages to you or me from dead loved ones. Often done to
make a buck, the psychic portrays their charade as if they are
helping you but in fact they are an influential catalyst towards
keeping you from truth…directing you away from what is real to an
imagined reality that is fabricated by their mind. A fabrication that
is not imparted by a dead spirit or a divine dispatch.
Understanding the deceptive practice of psychics will go a
long way towards adding clarity to such Bible stories as, Saul and

the witch of Endor, or Paul and the girl with a familiar spirit.
Neither of the women in these stories did anything outside of what
can be done with astute powers of observation using strictly
human abilities and intuition, along with other complementary
skills. It is true that many have had positive experiences from
contact with psychics and many receive comfort from contact with
psychics by believing they have connected with a dead relative or
the like. It is also true that psychics have guided many life choices
for many people throughout the entire history of the world. The
comfort received and the positive guidance accepted is not bad in
and of itself; however there is something not good about believing
a medium has given you divine information or you have heard
from a dead mother. What brings one into conflict with Yahweh
the Creator is one’s practice of ascribing the source of this comfort
and guidance to a false supernatural power.
The aim of the pursuit of psychic information seems to be to
provide a certain level of comfort to the seeker of the information
by giving them knowledge that is otherwise unavailable to them. If
comfort is the goal, then it seems that little harm can be said to
come of using a psychic and why not let them alone to ply their
trade and continue “helping” people as if they are counselors for
the spirit of humans? Some are inclined to judge the trade by the
fact that it does provide solace and comfort to thousands of
otherwise inconsolable people. In, “Believing in Magic, The
Psychology of Superstition,” the author lends us a quote by
renowned scientist/author Isaac Asimov. Asimov, who died in
1992, was a Russian-born American author and biochemist, a
highly successful and exceptionally prolific writer. Writing more
than 270 books, he was best known for his works of science fiction
and for his popular science books. Assimov says;
It is no defence of superstition and

pseudoscience to say that it brings solace and
comfort to people and that therefore we
“elitists” should not claim to know better and to
take it away from the less sophisticated.
86
If solace and comfort are how we judge the

worth of something, then consider that tobacco
brings solace and comfort to smokers; alcohol
brings it to drinkers: drugs of all kinds bring it
to addicts; the fall of cards and the run of
horses bring it to gamblers; cruelty and violence
bring it to sociopaths. Judge by solace and
comfort only and there is no behaviour we ought
to interfere with.
-Isaac Asimov, The Humanist
As I have done before I would like to simply supply you with

information put together by others. The Wikipedia is no source of
information to be scoffed at and with the disclaimer that I
encourage you to seek out multiple sources for information to aid
in proving the façade of or the validity of psychics, I will provide
the complete entry from the Wikipedia under the heading “Cold
Reading.” The following excerpt is a little lengthy but it is
fascinating to see how this practice works. Do take a moment and
read through the explanations below. You might find yourself to be
an excellent “psychic” after seeing how the trade functions.
Cold Reading
Cold Reading is a technique used by salespeople,
interrogators, hypnotists, psychics, psychologists,
graphologists, palmists, astrologers, con men and others
to convince another person that they know more about
them than they actually do.
Even without prior knowledge of a given person, a cold

reader could still quickly obtain a great deal of his subject
by carefully analysing his or her clothing or fashion,
hairstyle, gender, religion, race or ethnicity, education

level, manner of speech, and place of origin. This is called

profiling.
Cold Reading is sometimes not intended to defraud or

deceive. Former New Age practitioner Karla McLaren
said, "I didn't understand that I had long used a form of
Cold Reading in my own work! I was never taught Cold
Reading and I never intended to defraud anyone — I
simply picked up the technique through cultural osmosis."
[1]
Performers such as Ian Rowland, Mark Edward, Lynne

Kelly, Kari Coleman and Derren Brown have posed as
psychics offering either private fortune-telling sessions or
open forum "talking with the dead" sessions in the
manner of alleged psychic John Edward. Only after
receiving acclaim and applause do they reveal that they
needed no psychic power for the performance, only a
knowledge of psychology and cold-reading. Similarly, in
an episode of his Trick of the Mind series broadcast in
March 2006, Derren Brown demonstrated how people can
be influenced through Cold Reading techniques by
repeating the famous experiment in 1948, by psychologist
Bertram R. Forer.
Before starting the actual reading, the reader will typically

try to elicit cooperation, saying something like, "I often
see images that are a bit unclear and which may
sometimes mean more to you than to me; if you help, we
can together uncover new things about you."
The reader will then ask a number of questions, typically

using variations of the methods noted below. The subject
will typically reveal some information with their replies,
and the cold reader can continue from there, pursuing
promising lines of inquiry and abandoning unproductive
88
ones. In general, while some of the information comes

from the reader, most of the facts and statements come
from the subject, and are then refined and restated by the
reader.
Even very subtle cues such as changes in facial

expression or body language can indicate if a particular
line of questioning is effective or not.
Combining the techniques of Cold Reading with

information obtained covertly is called "hot reading.”
Cold Reading techniques

Shotgunning
"Shotgunning" is a common Cold Reading technique,

often used by purported psychics and mediums. The
psychic offers a huge quantity of information (some of
which is certain to be correct, near correct or evocative),
observes the subject's reactions, and then refines the
original statements according to those reactions. This
technique is named after a shotgun, which usually fires a
spray of many small projectiles ("shot") rather than a
single, larger projectile, in hopes that one or more of the
shot will strike the target.
Edgar Cayce, Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh, and

John Edward have all been accused of shotgunning.
Shotgunning might include series of statements such as:
 "I see a heart problem with a father-figure in your

family, a father, a grandfather, an uncle, a cousin... I'm

definitively seeing chest pain here for a father-figure in

your family."
 "I see a woman that isn't a blood relative. Someone
around when you were growing up, an aunt, a friend of
your mother, a step-mother with blackness in the chest,
lung cancer, heart disease, breast cancer..."
The Forer Effect/Barnum Statements
"Barnum statements" named after P.T. Barnum, the

American showman, are also used. These statements seem
personal, yet apply to a great many people. And while
seemingly specific, such statements are often open-ended.
These rather vague statements will elicit responses from

most people, which can then be developed into long
paragraphs which seem to reveal great amounts of detail
about a person.
Statements of this type might include:
 "I sense that you are sometimes insecure, especially

with people you don't know very well."
 "You have a box of old unsorted photographs in your
house."
 "You had an accident when you were a child involving
water."
 "You're having problems with a friend or relative."
 "You find your present line of work unsatisfying."
 "Your father died of problems in his chest or abdomen."
— if the client is old enough, his or her father is likely to
be dead, and this statement would apply to heart disease,
90
pneumonia, diabetes, most forms of cancer, and in fact to

the great majority of deaths. 10
There are hundreds of excellent resources available on this

topic. In regard to a resource for seeing “Cold Reading” explained,
a book by Ian Rowland comes highly recommended. The book is;
The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading (3rd edition, 2002, published
in the UK). The book provides, in about 240 pages, "a
comprehensive guide to the most persuasive psychological
manipulation technique in the world and its application to psychic
readings.” 11
So far in this discussion about the witch of Endor we have

learned the Scriptures teach us that when a person dies a physical
death they do not go either to Heaven or to Hell. Rather they enter
a stage of death called being “asleep” according to the Bible. Just
remember Lazarus for a moment. Lazarus did not become a spirit
in Heaven with Jesus and was then forced to return to his physical
body only to die again. Lazarus was in hell/the grave/sheol/the
pit/dead/asleep; pick a term you understand because they all lead
to the same meaning. And then Lazarus was given life again by
being resurrected by Yeshua.
Eyes Open Or Eyes Shut
We have also learned that psychics and mediums, like the women
with the “familiar spirits” in Acts and the witch of Endor stories,
can be seen as not operating in any supernatural power. Rather
they are operating in a realm of highly skilled human intuition.
Some of these psychics are knowingly deceiving their clients and
10
Article can be found at , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading
11
Good use of the information from this book is available at a website called The
Straight Dope. This is a site intending to clear up false ideas of paranormal activity. The
link is; http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcoldreading.html.

others actually believe that they are imbued with supernatural

powers. Skeptics call these two categories of psychics “eyes open”
and “eyes shut”. The renowned magician and skeptic James Randi,
has been a front runner in liberating people from clinging to a false
belief in supernatural psychic ability. The Amazing Randi, as he is
called, is not afraid to expose the practice and deception of those
claiming to have supernatural abilities. As one who exposes frauds,
Randi has come under a lot of fire in the past years. His “Million
Dollar” challenge has gained international attention and yet the
million bucks continues to collect interest in Randi’s account.
None have yet stepped forward and been able to prove they are
possessors of supernatural abilities. James Randi realizes the
difficult spot he has placed himself in and especially with the folks
who have a bent to the paranormal, whether they be purveyors of
the skills or recipients. Randi says this of his position;
"A lot of people hate my skepticism, and I think

I understand why. The psychics offer wonder
and endless possibilities in a world that often
seems difficult and mundane. They promise
health, wealth, wisdom, eternal life. But if you
examine the record, it's not the psychics but the
hard-nosed scientists who have actually
delivered the things that improve human life.
And, to me, science describes a world far more
interesting than any psychic fantasies. It's a
good world — not perfect, but it's ours. So we'd
better learn to live with it the way it is."
Looking Deeper At Saul And His Psychic Encounter
The woman with the familiar spirit who Saul went to see is no
different from a psychic offering what the hearer wanted to hear. If
92
you look carefully and objectively, you will be able to see how Saul
was taken in by this woman. Below is the text of that story from
the Bible. We pick up the text after Samuel the Prophet of Yahweh
had died and all of Israel had lamented that loss. Saul, in many
ways, had not served Yahweh, and was eager to hear from Yahweh
what would become of him in the near future. Saul had at this
point banned all “witchcraft” from the nation and just as with any
prohibition in any nation at any point in history, there were still
some practicers of witchcraft able to be found working
“underground.” They did not likely ply their trade openly.
The dispute Saul had with David had been seen by many, and
heard for some time now by the residents of the nation. It was
known by the general populace that Yahweh was not pleased with
Saul. At this juncture in the story, the Philistines had just gathered
together to organize their assault on the Kingdom of Saul, and
David and his men were included in this military gathering up
until this point. Things did not feel good for old Saul and perhaps
he was recounting his sins and why he was not hearing from God.
The loss of a man of God to counsel him and the fact of feeling God
was not pleased with him was the cause of fear and great trembling
of the heart of Saul. Saul was in a perfect emotional and mental
state to pursue the counsel of a woman with a familiar spirit. He
had no counsellors, knew trouble was brewing for him, and felt
varied emotions, of which one of them was fear… Enter “The Witch
of Endor.”
As you read the following passage of Scripture, it might help
to understand that the Urim and Thummim were stones placed on
the High Priests breastplate and kings would consult the High
Priest who would receive a sign from Yahweh through this
mysterious device. The Urim and Thummim were called the
“breastplate of decision.” The term “familiar spirit” seen below, is
often a term that gets colloquiallized as “witch.” In the Hebrew, it
is the word ob, which is translated with the word for
“ventriloquist” in the Greek Septuagint. Another important factor
to take note of in this tale is the fact that Saul had been fasting up
to the encounter with the witch. Keep in mind how probabilities

for duping a willing participant rise significantly when we begin to

put fasting into the equation. Eagerly going to seek the advice of a
spiritist while you have low blood sugar is a sure fire way to
experience a vision or something that you truly hope to experience
but really doesn’t happen.
1Samuel 28:5-20 KJV

5 And when Saul saw the host of the Philistines, he was afraid, and
his heart greatly trembled.
6 And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him
not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
7 Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a
familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her. And his
servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar
spirit at Endor.
8 And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he
went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night:
and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and
bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.
9 And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul
hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and
the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for
my life, to cause me to die?
10 And Saul swore to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth,
there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
11 Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he
said, Bring me up Samuel.
12 And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice:
and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me?
for thou art Saul.
13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou?
And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the
earth.
14 And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old
man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul
perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the
ground, and bowed himself.
15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring
me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines
94
make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth
me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have
called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.
16 Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the
LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?
17 And the LORD hath done to him, as he spoke by me: for the LORD
hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy
neighbor, even to David:
18 Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst
his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this
thing unto thee this day.
19 Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the
hand of the Philistines: and tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be
with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand
of the Philistines.
20 Then Saul fell straightway all along on the earth, and was sore
afraid, because of the words of Samuel: and there was no strength in
him; for he had eaten no bread all the day, nor all the night.
A Ventriloquist Is An Ob And Has No Supernatural

Powers
The woman with the familiar spirit in this story is called an “Ob”
by the ancients. Ob is translated in the above passage with the
word “familiar.” This word has long been taken to mean the
woman was possessed or inhabited by some type of a demonic
spirit. We first see the use of the word for familiar spirit, in
Leviticus 19:31;
Regard not them that have familiar spirits…
By the appearance of the word “spirits” in this text and in

others, most readers automatically go in their minds to define this
term as referring to a supernatural spirit working in and/or
through a person. Our present spiritually charged age is not as
hyper-spiritually charged as were ancient times, times when Kings
like Saul walked the earth. Even during the times of Yeshua and

Paul, as we are yet to discuss, there was a great prevalence of

dramatic spirituality amongst the citizens of that day.
Our present era finds us bombarded by “spiritualistic” and
seemingly supernatural stimuli in day-to-day life. The shear
volume of media that incorporates some type of spiritism is
immense. One can find television shows and movies continually
being shown that graphically and in great detail, portray
spiritualistic content. Content often includes pre-cognition, ghosts,
mediums, psychics, magical powers, and witchcraft, which often
involves placing curses on various recipients. In most of these
appearances of spiritism, the practices are used for good, which
thereby aids in normalizing and generating an acceptance of
practices that were outlawed by Yahweh in the Scriptures and
affirmed to be prohibited in the “New Testament.” In fact, the
writings of Paul tell us that we are not to take part in witchcraft or
sorceries. In his letter to the Galatians we are told that witchcraft
is a work of the flesh. Notice that according to Paul, quoted below,
witchcraft is in the same category of unacceptable practices that
happen to be credited to the flesh of man and not to a being of
supernatural influence such as Satan or demons. All these
supposedly supernatural practices simply come from the flesh of
man. No super powers found here.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies
Galatians 5:19-20 KJV
Witchcraft is discouraged by Paul for no other reason than

because in using witchcraft you become guilty of seeking
knowledge, prophecy, foretelling, power, healing and the like, from
a source other than Yahweh. I might add the source of witchcraft
may have the appearance of power but it is completely impotent.
This is the reason Paul says practicing witchcraft is equally from
96
the flesh as is a person causing strife. There is no cosmic,

supernatural power channeling through the one who practices
witchcraft.
A person, who uses another force, power, or source, as their
medium is seen by the Creator as serving other Gods. A child of
God is not to pursue any knowledge or assistance, for love,
finances, health, or happiness, through anyone other than their
Father. Particularly if they neglect to ascribe credit for the
information to the Creator. This would be similar to your child or
my child today seeking assistance for life’s troubles or questions
from another man or woman when you or I as the Father or
Mother would be fully willing to provide what was needed. Worse
would be if one of our children was asking for something from one
of us and we knew it was not appropriate for them to have that
item or information, then he or she went to another source to get
what they were looking for. If one does seek information from
another source and credits that source or a force instead of
Yahweh, they are making another god out of that person or out of
the force that the person allegedly has access to. Yahweh will see
one as serving another God. Not because they have necessarily
rejected Yahweh or given exclusive allegiance to that other “god.”
Rather because they have sought enlightenment in some form
from a source outside of God. We see the prohibition against using
those with familiar spirits stated for us in Leviticus 19 and in
Deuteronomy;
Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after
wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:31 KJV
And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and
after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face
against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 20:6 KJV

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard,

shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their
blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:27 KJV
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son
or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or
an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or
a necromancer.
12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD:
and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive
them out from before thee.
Deuteronomy 18:10-12 KJV
The above verses state quite clearly the idea that Yahweh
does not want His people seeking after those with familiar spirits.
This is just one practice that falls in the category of prohibited
behaviours for those who are called the People of God. All of these
practices, wizardry, necromancy, operating in a familiar spirit,
when studied in their ancient context are revealed to be works of
the flesh and are not products of supernatural abilities or
encounters.
Is The “Ob” Just A Ventriloquist?
Dealing specifically with the “Ob” or the one with a “familiar

spirit,” the history of such practices tells us that the “familiar
spirit” practice was little more than a ventriloquist act. John Gill
speaks of this practice in his notes to Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
We also can notice his findings when assessing his notes to the
Acts 16 account of Paul confronting the girl with a spirit of
divination.
98
Lev 19:31 - Regard not them that have familiar

spirits,... The word used signifies "bottles,” and
that sort of diviners here intended go by this
name, either because what they sat on when
they divined was in the form of a bottle, or they
divined by one, or they were swelled and
inflated as bottles when they delivered out their
answers, or spoke as out of a bottle or hollow
place; hence they are called masters or
mistresses of the bottle: they seem to be the
same with the ventriloquists, and so the
Septuagint version here calls them; such whose
voice seemed to come out of their bellies, and
even the lower parts of them; and such was the
Pythian prophetess at Delphos, and very
probably the maid in the times of the apostles,
who had a spirit of divination, or of Python,
Act_16:16; and so the words may be rendered
here, "look not to the Python" (n), or those who
have the spirit of Python; so Jarchi from the
Misnah (o) interprets the word here used, "Baal
Ob" or the master of the bottle, this is Python,
one that speaks from under his arm holes:12

Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or
a wizard, or a necromancer.
Deu 18:11 - Or a charmer,.... That pretends to

cure diseases by charms, or a charmer of
12
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)

serpents; according to Jarchi, one that gathers

together serpents and scorpions, and other
animals, into one place;
or a wizard: a knowing one, as the word

signifies, such an one as we call a cunning man;
See Gill on Lev_19:31.
or a necromancer that inquires of the dead, or

seeks instruction from them, as the Targum of
Jerusalem. Aben Ezra describes him as one that
goes to burying grounds, and takes the bone of
a dead man, and because of his wild imagination
there appears to him the likeness of forms; or
as Maimonides (l), better still, he is one that
fasts and sleeps in graveyards, and utters
words; and, according to his imagination, sees
future things in dreams. 13
Python Was “The Most High God”…At Least To The

Damsel
The Acts 16 account tells of Paul being followed by a girl who was
annoying him and his companions by shouting claims of who Paul
and his companions were.
And1161 it came to pass,1096 as we2257 went4198 to1519 prayer,4335 a

certain5100 damsel3814 possessed2192with a spirit4151 of divination4436
met528 us,2254 which3748 brought3930 her848 masters2962 much4183
gain2039 by soothsaying:3132
Acts 16:16
13
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible,Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)
100
The text tells us this girl with the spirit of divination was
shouting “for many days,” that Paul and those with him were
servants of the Most High God. Most of us might be happy to have
someone going around after us shouting that we were servants of
the Most High God, but in this case it was an annoyance to Paul.
The palpable annoyance felt by Paul was likely because the people
of Paul’s day might have then focused on the “girl” and the
supposed force that caused her to “divine.” Some would have
thought that as a Pythoness this girl was referring to the God
Python that was said to be “The Most High God.” The girl’s ranting
would have connected Paul to Python the Most High God. To have
people focus on Python would have been opposed to them focusing
on the message of the Messiah, which Paul and his group were
bringing. This girl served a different God and because she and
those of her religious persuasion would have thought that the god
they served was “The Most High God” so too those hearing her
proclamation about Paul and company would have led to
confusion as to whom Paul’s God was. In Paul’s day there were
many who would claim to foretell the future, hear from the dead,
or delve into many numerous “supernatural” practices. The history
of these types of frauds is telling. We will hear from John Gill
again as he comments on this verse;
Act 16:16 …
a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of
divination, met us; in the Greek text it is, "the
spirit of Python"; the Alexandrian copy and the
Vulgate Latin version read, "the spirit Python";
the same with Apollo, who was called Pythius,
as was his oracle, from the people coming to
him, πυνθανεσθαι, to inquire of him and consult
with him, about difficult matters (y); or rather
from the Hebrew word ‫פתן‬, which signifies a
serpent; …

… the prophetess that sat upon the golden

tripos, and delivered out the oracles, [was
called]Pythia;…
…and so this maid, or the spirit in her,
pretended to divine and foretell things to come;
and the Arabic renders it, "an unclean spirit,
foretelling future things": the Jews (c) make this
spirit of Python, to be the same with Ob, which
we render a familiar spirit, Lev_20:27 and the
Septuagint by "Engastrimythos,” a ventriloquist,
one that seemed to speak out of his belly, and
pretended to predict future events;…
… the word here used: so the Jews say (d), that
a master of Ob (as the woman of Endor is called
the mistress of Ob), ‫זה פיתום‬, this is "Python": and
so Jarchi on Deu_18:11 explains the word, and
adds, that it is one that speaks out of his arm
holes, as those sort of people did from several
parts of their bodies, and even from their secret
parts: the word signifies a bottle, and they were
called masters or mistresses of the bottle; either
because the place on which they sat, and from
whence they gave forth their oracles, was in the
form of one;
[Of Eurycles it is said], that he was a

ventriloquist… Tertullian affirms he had seen
such women that were ventriloquists, from
whose secret parts a small voice was heard, as
they sat and gave answers to things asked:
102
which brought her masters much gain by

soothsaying: divining or prophesying; it seems
she had many masters, who had a propriety in
her, and shared the gain she brought; unless by
them are meant her master and mistress: vast
treasures were brought to the temple at
Delphos, by persons that applied to the Pythian
oracle there; and great quantities were got by
particular persons, who pretended to such a
spirit, by which they told fortunes,14
A Lie Told Long Enough Becomes The Truth
Gill is one of many historical commentators who correctly

understood the act of divining through a “familiar spirit.” Gill does
give himself the leeway to still claim that the girl did have a
“demonic spirit” inhabiting her. This though is simply Gill’s
manner of expressing that he believes in a cosmic Satan and
therefore he leaves room in his statements to conclude that
possibly there was a supernatural spirit present in the girl. There
are of course no shortage of commentators, most of whom are
Christian in their thinking and doctrine, who will state quite
haphazardly that this woman of Acts 16 and the woman with the
“familiar spirit” who Saul dealt with, are both infused with a
supernatural spirit of demonic nature. The concept has become so
well accepted as a true concept that represents a person operating
under the power and influence of “Satan,” that most Christian
14
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible,Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)
(y) Phurnutus de natura deorum, p. 94. Vid. Schol. Aristoph. Plut. p. 6. & Macrob.
Saturnal. l. 1. c. 17. (z) Homer. Hymn. in Apollo, v. 372, &c. (a) Pausan. l. 10. p. 619.
(b) Alex. ab. Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 6. c. 2. (c) R. Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg.
36, 38. (d) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 7. sect. 7. (e) Lex. Pentaglott. col. 34. (f) De defectu
oracul. p. 691. (g) Vespae, p. 502. (h) See Webster's Displaying of supposed Witchcraft,
p. 122, 124. (i) De Servis, p. 355

commentators continue to reiterate the idea in the commentaries

they produce. In the case of religious interpretation and theories,
we find there seems to be an axiom present. The axiom could be
stated as thus;
“If what you first teach a student is a lie, the

lie becomes truth to the student. If the lie is
taught long enough it becomes truth to all
its hearers.”
Upon the student then hearing the “new” truth that is

contrary to what he or she was first taught, he or she is almost
incapable of accepting it as truth. This is due to their belief system
having a lie at its foundation. A posture is taken that resists the
truth that represents change. The rigid resistance to explore the
validity of the belief is often an indication they believe a lie. Most
humans are prone to accept that which they are first taught or
hear, as truth. Stated another way, if I am told as a child that the
moon is made of cheese, then that is my truth, until such a time as
that truth can be sufficiently disproved and I am open to seeing
that I had a wrong belief.
How many times have we heard a story from one perspective
only to then hear it from the perspective of the opposing side and
recognize the great differences in the tale? I have crossed the path
of many who have been told of my family’s departure from the
Church we used to attend. The story that was passed on to them
was that we were in a cult and have in fact rejected the Messiah.
Over the course of our journey, we did have the opportunity to sit
with a few of the old friends from the Church and explain our
stand on why we left organized religion. Invariably, upon hearing
our version, which I would call the truth, those friends come to
understand that we are not in a cult nor have we rejected the
Messiah. What a world of difference in how they relate to my
family and me when they receive a version of “my story” which is
given by my wife and I. At any rate, those who are not given an
opportunity to hear the other side of a story are left to believe the
104
one sided, errant version they received from their leaders, their
family, or their friends. It is sad, but by their actions they prove the
above axiom true. They heard something first and took it to be the
truth. The inherent power that comes with one hearing a supposed
“truth” is often too great to be overcome and replaced by a “new”
and more correct version of “truth.” A belief system is one of the
hardest things to change and unless a person is willing to honestly
explore other ideas and beliefs, and unless a person decides to find
and accept the truth no matter what that truth is, then he or she
will be hopelessly held captive to their own belief system.
It Is Not A New Idea To Say Satan Isn’t Real
Please let me remind you once again that I am not postulating a

new concept here, nor is the concept one that I expect you to
believe without making some further, serious inquisition into the
matter. Don’t believe everything I say, seek it out for yourself.
Many of us are prone to accept what we are taught by our parents
and leaders without questioning. As we move more into the arena
of personally searching out truth for ourselves, we will see a huge
shift away from centuries old false teachings that have been
supplied us by our fathers. These false teachings from our fathers
are simply lies inherited from their fathers and the fathers before
them. Cultures throughout history have dealt with the need to
reject the lies handed down by their fathers and Israel is no
exception. The Prophet Jeremiah speaks on behalf of Yahweh and
tells the soon to be scattered and exiled Israelites that they are
going to reap the consequences of their debauchery. However,
after a time of evil foisted upon the Israelites, Yahweh will see to it
that all the nations including Israel will come to their senses and
admit that they have inherited lies.
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of

affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the
earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity,
and things wherein there is no profit.

Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods?
Jeremiah 16:19-20 KJV
Notice the statement by the Prophet that the gods that were
made by the people were no gods. This is a key concept in
recognizing that there is no “Satan.” Something that is called, “not
a god” by Yahweh means it does not exist as an entity that has the
power to do anything supernatural or otherwise. As for the
understanding of ancient and early CE period divination such as
necromancy or having a “familiar spirit,” one need not read the
mystical into those practices. There is a broad spectrum of
scholars from present era to eras long past, who have seen the
practices of illusions, tricks, and divination that were used in the
early CE period, how they were understood as taking place in the
period of King Saul.
In the book titled Greek Divination: A Study of its Methods
and Principles by W. R. Halliday (1913), we are given another
excellent explanation of ancient practices.
The words 'ob and yidde 'oni, which mean in

the first instance the spirit of a deceased
person, came to mean him or her that divines
by such a spirit. Now the Septuagint translates
shoel 'ob, one who consults an 'ob, by the
word pythonem. The pythonem were
apparently very common in antiquity. Clement
refers to them as one of the principal types of
pagan diviner. They were also called
Eurykleidai from a notorious Eurykles,
sternomanteis, and Pythones. [Puthon], like
the Hebrew 'ob, could mean equally the
divining spirit or the diviner whom it
possessed.
106
The familiar spirit which St. Paul cast out of

the girl at Philippi is called [pnuma puthone/
spirit of divination]. These diviners belong, of
course, to the lowest grade of the profession,
and were evidently for the most part
ventriloquist quacks who drove a despised but
perhaps profitable trade among the vulgar. So
far as the nature of their familiar spirit is
defined, it seems probable that it was
supposed to be the ghost of a deceased
person, though one would not look for clear
definition or consistence of theory in this lowly
branch of the art of divination. In most pas-
sages where they are mentioned they occur in
close juxtaposition to the necromancers, and
Philochoros evidently connected them with the
art of divining by the dead. Pg 244 and 245
(emphasis added)
In the above quote, we are told of the word “ob” which is

translated as “ventriloquist” and we are also told of the encounter
Paul had. In Paul’s encounter with the “girl with a spirit of
divination,” Halliday teaches us that she would have been a cheap
ventriloquist who plied her trade amongst the lower class of
people. Apparently, her trade was viewed by those subjected to it,
as a truly supernatural activity. Just as there are so many who are
willing to believe psychics today and are fooled into believing some
supernatural activity is going on, so too were the bulk of citizens
apt to believe a “girl with a spirit of divination” was actually
infused with a supernatural spirit.
In an age where spiritism was prolific and a Greco-Roman
culture continued to bombard the citizens of its empire with tales
of supernatural activity by Gods, demi-gods, and oracles, the
common folk often adopted these mystical beliefs. Paul’s

insistence that she cease her charade was tantamount to Paul

proclaiming that she stop causing simple folk to accept there is
another force that has the spirit of prophecy and would presume
Paul was a servant of her God, Apollo.
Understanding the story of Saul and the woman with the

familiar spirit from a new perspective may be difficult for those
who were taught it is a story of a woman with power to contact the
spirits of the dead. The perspective I am coming from on this story
is that the dead are not able to manifest their presence in any form
because they are “not knowing anything” as Ecclesiastes teaches
us.
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any
thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them
is forgotten.
But Didn’t A Spirit Rise Out Of The Ground?
In the story of Saul and the medium from Endor, we read that
Samuel appeared to the witch from out of the ground. Could this
be so, that a pagan diviner might be able to summon successfully
the spirit of a dead prophet of Yahweh? The attempt to reconcile
where the dead are according to Scripture, with the apparent
appearance of Samuel in the story in question, has been the
catalyst for a view that suggests God surprised the powerless
“witch” by causing the spirit of Samuel to speak from the grave.
Some contend that it was God performing the illusion by having an
apparition appear to the witch. This view confuses a consistent
God with a God who does not adhere to the principles He has
established for the dead. If it is the case that Yahweh brought the
manifestation of Samuel’s spirit, then those verses that teach the
dead cannot communicate with the living because they are
“asleep” become lies. Therefore, Yahweh would also have to be a
liar.
108
It seems convenient for a person who believes the Immortal

Soul Doctrine to postulate that God raised the spirit of Samuel in
this instance alone. The convenient claim is that God decided this
one time He would raise a spirit from the dead and act contrary to
all He teaches about the state of the dead. The Immortal Soul
Doctrine suggests that the soul of a human is a separate part of a
human and lives on, feeling and perceiving after the physical death
of the mortal. This concept was first introduced into Christianity
from Origen, adopting yet another pagan philosophy and claiming
it was a precept of the Scriptures. In Origen De Principiis he
wrote;
... The soul, having a substance and life of its

own, shall after its departure from the world, be
rewarded according to its deserts, being
destined to obtain either an inheritance of
eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall
have procured this for it, or to be delivered up
to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its
crimes shall have brought it down to this ..."
(Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240).
Body- blank -And Spirit
The Hebrew word translated "soul" in the Old Testament is

nephesh and simply means “a breathing creature.” Vine's
Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament
Words teaches that the nephesh is "the essence of life, the act of
breathing, taking breath ... The problem with the English term
“soul” is that no actual equivalent of the term or the idea behind it
is represented in the Hebrew language. Hebrew thinking does not
include the position that the individual possesses both a body and

soul. This theory is Greek and Latin in origin.” The Interpreter's

Dictionary of the Bible makes this comment on nephesh.
"The word 'soul' in English, though it has to

some extent naturalized the Hebrew idiom,
frequently carries with it overtones, ultimately
coming from philosophical Greek (Platonism)
and from Orphism and Gnosticism which are
absent in 'nephesh.' In the OT it never means
the immortal soul, but it is essentially the life
principle, or the living being, or the self as the
subject of appetite, and emotion, occasionally of
volition" (Vol. 4, 1962, "Soul," emphasis added).
It seems that out of the convenience of finding a comfortable

theory about an immortal soul, we justify that which we don’t
understand by once again adopting a non- biblical, ancient
philosophy of the “spirit/soul’s” continued existence after the
physical death of the human being. What need is there at all of a
resurrection of the physical body as is taught in the Scriptures and
by the Apostles. If the human has transcended the physical realm
and is dwelling in a “spirit” state because their soul is immortal,
there seems to be no need to resurrect the dead. If we are honest,
we will admit that there is no need at all for a resurrection of the
redundant body if the soul after death, continues some type of a
supra-conscious existence. The spirit of Samuel could not have
been truly present in front of the witch of Endor; otherwise, the
entire Scriptural and Hebrew understanding of what happens to a
dead person must be altered.
Albert Barnes may have understood some things more than
is evident according to many of the conclusions he comes to in his
commentary. Barnes’ understanding of what the “witch of Endor”
was doing is seen in his statements on 1 Samuel 28 and Leviticus
19:31;
110
1Sa 28:3 -
It does not appear when Saul had suppressed
witchcraft; it was probably in the early part of
his reign.
Familiar spirits ... wizards - i. e. ventriloquists ...
wise or cunning men. See Lev_19:31 note.
Lev 19:31
Familiar spirits - literally, “bottles.” This
application of the word is supposed to have
been suggested by the tricks of ventriloquists,
within whose bodies (as vessels or bottles) it
was fancied that spirits used to speak. In other
cases, the word is used for the familiar spirit
which a man pretended to employ in order to
consult, or to raise, the spirits of the
dead.15(emphasis added)
Looking further at the account of the woman with the

familiar spirit as encountered by King Saul, we may choose to try
to see it through the eyes of history and what the word used for
“familiar” spirit seems to indicate. Is it possible that there might
be some type of psychic parlour trick of ventriloquism being
performed in the presence of Saul in this story? Does the text,
when looked at in light of the information I have just shared, give
us any possible clues as to the activity of the woman and it being a
simple “Cold Reading” or perhaps a “hot reading” from a player
who would have had information available to her? Could this
“medium” have been able to “read” Saul simply because she was
cognizant of what had been going on in the Kingdom of Saul?
Isaiah provides some accurate descriptors of the behaviour of
15

these ventriloquists. Frauds who manipulate their voices and the

information they have of a person’s situation and then use the
information they intuitively extract from the one who was so eager
to receive counsel or a prophetic word.
Recognizing the futility of the heathen practices that many in
Israel had also made use of, Isaiah breaks it down for us in
describing the practice of hearing from the dead spirits. Isaiah
teaches that these theatrical ventriloquists are peeping and
muttering. Take a look at what Albert Barnes’ says of this use of
“familiar spirits.” His commentary points to the skills of the
ventriloquist as the active force of the soothsayer.
Isaiah 8:19 KJV

And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar
spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a
people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
That hath familiar spirits - Hebrew, ‫' אבות‬obôth.

The word ‘familiar,’ applied to spirit, is
supposed to have been used by our translators
to imply that they were attended by an invisible
spirit that was subject to their call, or that
would inspire them when they sought his
direction…
… The Septuagint renders the place thus: ‘And
if they say to you, Seek the “ventriloquists,”
ἐγγαστριμύθους engastrimuthous, and those
speaking from the earth, and speaking vain
things, who speak from the belly,’ οἵ ἐκ τῆς
κοιλίας φωνοῦσιν hoi ek tēs koilias phōnousin.
From this it is evident, that the art of the
ventriloquist, so well known now, was known
then; and it is highly probable that the secret of
112
the art of soothsayers consisted very much in

being able to throw the voice, with various
modifications, into different places, so that it
would seem to come from a grave, or from an
image of a dead person, that was made to
appear at the proper time.16
History has been brought to mind often when the

supernatural is the topic of conversation. Many of the stories
shared hold the hearer’s attention and are full of intrigue. This is
so because it is so difficult to think anything other than a
supernatural phenomenon has taken place. However, exploration
of the ancient processes, charades, and manipulative schemes that
are performed at the hand of today’s “psychic,” begin to draw back
the great veil that covers the wizard. The psychic is exposed not as
a medium who bilks power from a satanic realm and money from a
believing client. Rather the psychic becomes nothing more than a
very skilled and intuitive manipulator. One who not only fools
many who don’t understand the underlying skills at work but often
has deceived themselves and ascribes their “power” to an external
source originating in the supernatural. The work of the psychic or
medium cannot be used to affirm the existence or power of Satan,
because as will be clearly displayed in the coming pages, those
powers are completely natural and originate from the human
psychic alone.
No Psychics – No Satan
There is little doubt that psychics are nothing more than frauds and
charlatans. Even the ones who unwittingly use their skills to read people
are not a lot better than self-deluded carnival hucksters. But looking at
16
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible,Albert Barnes (1798-1870)

the psychic world as it pertains to Satan is quite important to our overall

objective. Many believers see the work of the psychic and automatically
connect their power to a supernatural force. They equate what the
psychic is able to do with the work of Satan. So in displaying how
religion has been deceived about who and what Satan is now we can add
the fact that many have been deceived about who and what psychics are.
Psychics don’t tap into the demonic to tell you things that “ no one else
could know.”
Let’s keep the foregoing in mind as we look closer in the next
chapter, at how Saul was deceived. It is only fair that if in fact psychic
power was not at work, then I should be able to explain just what went
on in that Endorian village the day Saul got the bad news of what was to
come. How did a King as brave and strong as Saul get fooled by a little
old fortune teller?
114
CHAPTER 4 - Psychic Fraud Or Satanic Inspiration? 115

116
CH AP TE R 4
Psychic Fraud Or Satanic
Inspiration?
How Badly Did Saul Want Some “Divine” Information?
Understanding Saul’s encounter with the woman with the familiar

spirit is very pertinent in coming to an understanding there is no
Satan. It is an excellent tale to dissect to show there are no
supernatural power brokers who can raise the dead, see the future,
or tell your fortune. This account begins with showing us how
eager Saul was to get information about the future of His
Kingdom. Saul was more than just a little worried at the
proposition of going to war against the mighty Philistines. And
Saul was no different than most people who need a huge dose of
reassurance. He was very willing to hear a message that gave him
some idea of what was about to take place. The strong desire one
has to believe something spoken from a prophetic or mediumistic
source is a key factor in receiving a message from the psychic and
spiritual frauds of our time. In the following verses we see the
factors that motivated Saul to try to contact the dead. Saul was
motivated by fear.
1Samuel 28:1 and 5

1 And it came to pass in those days, that the Philistines gathered
their armies together for warfare, to fight with Israel. And Achish
said unto David, Know thou assuredly, that thou shalt go out with
me to battle, thou and thy men…

5And when Saul saw the host of the Philistines, he was afraid, and
his heart greatly trembled.
Saul was greatly afraid. Huge armies had gathered to go

against Saul. Everyone in the kingdom would be well aware of the
intensity of the situation and the very serious threat that was
presenting itself to Saul. The entire nation had lamented the death
of Saul’s prophet Samuel and the palpable unrest would not be
hidden from any, particularly not from those who made a living
out of gathering and utilizing information readily available in their
environment. People such as the “woman with the familiar spirit”
would easily have recognized the impending nature of the current
amassing of the Philistine armies to go against Saul and the
Kingdom he was ruler over. Fear, especially great fear is very easy
for one as intuitive as a well-known psychic or medium to pick up
on. The psychic would have known that Saul was not able to get a
message from the Lord and that he was more than a little anxious
about what was going to happen to him and his Kingdom.
And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not,
neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
1Samuel 28:6 KJV
Do you think Saul was desperate? I think so. The great fear of
Saul had already led him to seek out counsel from Yahweh in
numerous fashions. Hoping for a dream to answer some questions,
Saul received none. Checking with the Urim was another shut-out
for Saul. The Urim, as was mentioned previously, was part of a
two-piece breastplate the High Priest wore when functioning as a
leader in the nation of Israel. It is referred to as the “plate of
decision” in the Septuagint and it is understood in part, to be a
means of seeking an answer from Yahweh when a question of
pertinence is asked before the priest. The term in the Scriptures,
“He asked of the Lord,” is often seen to mean the High Priest
wearing the ephod and the breastplate with the Urim and
Thummim hanging on his chest was consulted. Smith’s Bible
Dictionary affords us some insight into the Urim and Thummim
118
that were in fact placed inside the breastplate of the High Priest
holding the twelve precious stones that represented the 12 tribes of
Israel.
In what way the Urim and Thummim were

consulted is quite uncertain. Josephus and the
rabbins supposed that the stones gave out the
oracular answer by preternatural illumination;
but it seems to be far simpler and more in
agreement with the different accounts of
inquiries made by Urim and Thummim, 1Sa_14:3;
1Sa_14:18-19; 1Sa_23:2; 1Sa_23:4; 1Sa_23:9; 1Sa_23:11-12;
1Sa_28:6; Jdg_20:28; 2Sa_5:23
etc., to suppose that the
answer was given simply by the word of the
Lord to the high priest, compare Joh_11:51
when, clothed with the ephod and the
breastplate, he had inquired of the Lord. Such a
view agrees with the true notion of the
breastplate.17
Saul, in his growing desperation to hear from God, goes to his

advisors and asks them to take him to a “medium.” They had to be
thinking, “Hey, didn’t you recently ban all sorcery and witchcraft
in the kingdom?” And they would be right to think that, although
seeing Saul’s desperation it is unlikely they would confront him on
his choice to break his own rule. Nevertheless, Saul had decided to
seek counsel from someone other than Yahweh. I suppose even if
you are the King, it is a bad idea to seek the answer from some
other force when Yahweh is not giving an answer to a question.
Answers were sought in biblical history through many diverse
sources. Only a few were allowed according to Yahweh, and they
were the ones that directed the searcher to Yahweh or His prophet
or priest. However, clever game-like practices were invented by
17
Smith's Bible Dictionary by Dr. William Smith (1884)

seekers of divine information. One manner of seeking answers in

the ancient times was; a questioner would take arrows and shake
them in their hand then toss them into the air. The position in
which they landed would give them their answer. This practice is
called Rhabdocy and is referred to in Hosea 4:12.
My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto
them: for the spirit of whoredoms hath caused them to err, and they
have gone a whoring from under their God.
Hosea 4:12 KJV
The practice of Rhabdocy, similar to seeking a word from a

“woman with a familiar spirit,” was thought to be orchestrated by a
supernatural force and provided a supernatural answer. Numerous
forms of divination have been employed by the ancients. In
Volume Two of Joseph Ennemoser’s “History Of Magic,”
Ennemoser writes of several types of divination used by the
ancients. I will provide excerpts of Ennemoser’s description of
these practices below as points of information.
Alectromantia-
An ancient kind of divination used by the
Greeks. A circle was made on the ground and
divided into 24 equal portions with a letter of
the alphabet written in each one and a grain of
wheat set on each letter. The answer was
acquired by setting a cock in the ring and
journaling which letter was under each grain the
cock picked. The corresponding letters were
formed into a word and the answer was
decreed.
Arithmomancy-
A kind of divination or method of foretelling
the future events by means of numbers. Jewish,
120
Kabbalistic Gematria is one form of

Arithmomancy.
Belomancy-
Another method of belomancy was to take
three arrows , mark two thus; “God forbids it
me,” “God orders it me” and the third was
unmarked. The participant draws out one arrow
and if they drew one of the marked arrows the
answer was had. If they drew the blank arrow,
they drew again to get an answer. This practice
is thought to be the one mentioned by Ezekiel
and as revealed from Hosea chapter four as
seen above.
Eze 21:21 KJV For the king of Babylon stood at the
parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to
use divination: he made his arrows bright, he
consulted with images, he looked in the liver.
Cleromancy-
Is a kind of divination performed by throwing
dice or little bones and then observing the
points or marks turned up.
Capnomancy-
This kind of divination employs smoke from
the sacrifices of the ancients. If the smoke was
thin and light, ascending straight up, the omen
was good, if the contrary was seen; the omen
was bad. [ This seems to be used by the
papacy]
Chiromancy-

The art of divining the fate, temperament and

disposition of a person using the lines and
ligaments of the hands.
Dactyliomancy-
After first consecrating a ring with a great deal
of mystery, the participant was shaven, dressed
in linen and made to hold vervein in his hand.
The Gods were appeased by formulary prayers
and then the ring was attached to a thread and
held by the participant as a pendulum over the
table. On the table edge, which was to be round,
were 24 markings which were the letters of the
alphabet. The ring then swung to individual
letters and the message was recorded and
decreed.
Gastromancy-
This species of divination, practiced among the
ancients, was performed by means of
ventriloquism.
Oneirocritica-
The art of interpreting dreams or the method
of foretelling future events by means of dreams.
Pyromancy-
The ancients imagined they could foretell the
future by inspecting fire and flame.
Psycomancy or Sciomancy-
122
An art among the ancients of raising or calling

up the manes or souls of the deceased persons,
to give intelligence of things to come. The witch
who conjured up the soul of Samuel, to foretell
Saul the event of the battle he was about to
give, did so by Sciomancy.18
Ennemoser’s list ends with Rhabdomancy, which was noted

at the start of our list. The list in “the History of Magic” is not
exhaustive as is admitted by the author and he goes on to inform
us briefly of a few other types of divination. They are according to
Ennemoser; Chilomancy- performed with keys; Alphitomancy or
Aleuromancy performed with flour; Keraunoscopia performed by
considering thunder; Lithomancy, by stones; Eychnomancy, by
lamps; Ooscopy, by eggs; Licanomancy, by a basin of water;
Palpitatim, by the pulsation or motion of some member.
To be sure, Ennemoser has not given an exhaustive list of

types of divination practices of the ancients. Were he to generate a
list backwards from this point in history, we would receive an
entire volume of the varied practices said to aid the one practicing
them to find answers to their questions, foretelling the future, or
advising about love or money. Still today, there are new types of
divination and variations of old styles of divination being
discovered, designed, and rediscovered. I am confidently able to
state that there is not one form of divination which is legitimately
answering the questioner or revealing any information of the past,
present, or future, as a result of supernatural forces. This is a fact
of the unabashed truth of the God of the Scriptures. Isaiah can be
relied on again to emphasize this point. (see below)
Recognizing the syncretistic philosophy of the exiled people
of God, Isaiah was called into action by the Creator to deliver His
word to them. You will see by the following text that Yahweh is
attempting to get the message to the world that there is no one or
18
The History of Magic, Volume II, Joseph Ennemoser. 1970, University Books Inc

no-thing that can give information about the future, except for the
Creator Himself. The Israelites had accepted lies from the nation
they were exiled to. The lies involved believing that some idols and
the gods represented by them, as well as the priests, the oracles,
and the prophets who were representing the false gods, had the
power to foretell the future or events soon to occur. This was
blatant idolatry and not acceptable to Yahweh, so Isaiah was told
to repudiate these false predictors of events and tellers of fortunes
and futures;
Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them
shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them,
and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.
Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that
ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and
behold it together.
Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination
is he that chooseth you.
Isaiah 41:22-24 KJV
A close look at this prophetic word shows Yahweh was

challenging the false gods of the nations, calling them to prove
themselves to be deities. Keil & Delitzsch speak of this concept in
their commentary on the passage. They make the following points.
- God first informs that He is responsible for the presence of
oppressors on the nations. – Only God knows or can predict the
future and, K and D state that God challenges the worshippers of
idols to do any of the things He has done and can do. By referring
to God as the tutelary deity of Jacob, Yahweh puts forth a
challenge to the non-existent gods of the heathen to prove they are
deity. It is obvious to Isaiah and Israel that they can’t because they
don’t exist.19
19
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Johann (C.F.) Keil (1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)
124
From Whom And Where Does God Want Us To Seek

Answers?
God does not want us to seek answers from anything or anyone

but Him. It doesn’t matter how afraid we are of the Philistines as
Saul was. No force or source is available in the universe to give
information out when we are not hearing from God for a time. He
is the only force and source. To pursue information from another
source is telling Yahweh that you think there are other Gods.
Believing that the “witch of Endor” or any practice of divination
can provide supernatural answers or info, is idolatry likened to
placing another god before Yahweh and an infraction of the first
and second commandment. Any belief in another thing or
supposed force that is capable of providing unknown information
is to engage in idolatry, this includes believing “satan” is able to do
this as well. I cannot help but provide you with a few statements
from Ennemoser’s volume two of the History of Magic. On page
475 he spends a couple of pages describing a pretended sort of
witchcraft of Africa called “Obeah.” Ennemoser relates the name
“Obeah” to an Egyptian deity. In seeing this as being another God,
Ennemoser tells how it is supposed to be a malicious deity, and the
author of all evil and inflictor of diseases only able to be appeased
by human sacrifices. Ennemoser writes;
If this name Obboney has any relation to the Ob

of Egypt, and if the Ob, both anciently in Egypt
and to this day in the west of Africa, signifies “a
serpent,” what does this discover to our views
but that Satan has the name of serpent among
the Negroe nations as well as among those of
Europe? How it has happened that the serpent,
which in some systems, is the emblem of the
good spirit, should in others be the emblem of
the evil one, is a topic which belongs to more
extensive inquiry. This is enough for our present

satisfaction, to remember that the profession of,

and belief in sorcery or witchcraft, supposes the
existence of two deities- the one the author of
good and the other the author of
20
evil; (emphasis added)
A clear testimony from Ennemoser is given that states, if one

believes in sorcery or witchcraft, he or she is supposing the
existence of two deities. At that stage, the person who claims to
believe in the One God of the Bible has fooled him or herself into
believing in two Gods and is also guilty of idolatry. Still, at that,
there is a disconnect and the typical Christian refuses to admit the
second deity they believe in is a God.
We find then that Saul was afraid of the impending war and
he found no answer from sources that Yahweh had condoned, so
he went to the “witch.” Saul stole away to the woman in a disguise
but being head and shoulders above the rest of the men in his
party, it would not be truly a “psychic” feat for the woman to
recognize Saul. The woman was well versed at her art of Cold
Reading and knew how to do a pretty good set up. As any Cold
Reading expose’ will reveal, the “psychic” almost always plays the
humble role and works at making the participant believe they are
sincere and are not deceiving them in an way. Finding ways to
build trust with the participant is an old snake-oil, sales practice
and the supposed “psychic” is little more than a snake oil salesman
who wants to do what it takes to make you trust and believe in
their product.
Then said Saul unto his servants, “Seek me a woman that hath a
familiar spirit that I may go to her and enquire of her.” And his
servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar
spirit at Endor.
20
“The History of Magic,” Volume two page 478 by Joseph Ennemoser (1787-1854),
1970, University Books Inc
126
And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went,
and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and
he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring
me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.
1Samuel 28:7-9 KJV
The woman who had a familiar spirit was obviously still

practicing her trade in secret. As I mentioned before, there are
precious few historical accounts of any prohibition being strictly
followed by those subject to the imposed prohibition. Even though
there had been an edict for these practices to cease in the Kingdom
of Saul, it is more than likely the woman with the familiar spirit
was performing clandestine “readings” for people. Thus when
asked by Saul to locate a woman with a “familiar spirit,” Saul’s
guys knew just where to go. If Saul believed his edict to put away
all wizards and people with familiar spirits from the land was
being strictly obeyed, then he was pretty stupid to ask his men to
take him to a woman with a familiar spirit. Saul himself would
agree that there were “psychics” still hanging around and probably
practicing their art. This woman, after all was not in Saul’s town
just down the street from his palace. She was in a small town
called Endor, which was miles away from Saul’s residence. If Saul
were gathered in Gilboa with his troops, then Endor would have
been about 8 miles from his location, and over difficult terrain
according to the ISBE. Shunem was the town where the Philistines
who Saul was afraid of were gathered and the region of Shunem
was very close to Endor, only a couple of miles. We can learn two
things from this rudimentary geographical assessment.
One; is that Saul, even though he had placed the ban on all
witchcraft activities, would surely have understood his ban did not
mean that every “witch” in every town in all of Israel was
complying. Therefore when He asked to be taken to a “woman with
a familiar spirit” there was one not far from Gilboa.
Two; is that the woman Saul went to see did not need CNN
to figure out that the Philistine army was huge and they were a
serious threat to Saul. The residents of Endor would be able to
easily access reports and information regarding what was

transpiring very near their town. The “witch/psychic” would be

ready to use this information in her encounter with the visibly
frightened and compromising King. Keep in mind a person in an
emotionally charged state is very responsive and very participatory
in an encounter with someone they believe is a medium or psychic.
She knew he was in a tight spot and that helped her play her cards
right, so to speak, when this large man in disguise with body
guards showed up at her place. Saul’s edict to ban all witchcraft
was intended to prevent Israelites from seeking counsel from a
source other than Yahweh. Now he was doing exactly what he had
legislated to prevent. Saul placed himself in a position where the
woman was in control of this double-play of deception. She knew
Saul was very vulnerable to the Philistines as they were camped
very near her location and Saul was very vulnerable to her
deceptive tactics. Gilboa, Shunem, and Endor were all very
proximal to each other as any map of the area will testify.
Presuming the woman was able to detect she was in the

presence of Saul by his stature and manner of presentation with
the company of his men, she was then interested in securing her
safety from a King she knew would not hesitate to execute her if he
was displeased with her. Sure, she had likely heard the stories of
Saul’s bi-polar behaviour towards David and others. This “man”
who she probably knew was Saul, was now asking for her to call up
the one Saul would ask for. She, needing some assurance that she
would not be killed, began to work her client by saying, “Are you
setting me up?”
In verse 9 she basically presses Saul to promise that he will
not kill her. Although Saul was pretending to be someone else, she
expected Saul knew she recognized him. As a clever psychic, the
woman didn’t let on that she was clear on her latest client’s
identity but she readily accepts his vow that indicates she will be
protected from punishment if she gets information from a dead
spirit for Saul.
And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath
done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the
128
wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my
life, to cause me to die?
1 Samuel 28:9 KJV
The assurance she receives from Saul is characteristic not of a

random seeker of mediumistic work, but one of a person who had
the power to assure her she would be safe. Hear Saul’s words of
assurance. It does not seem that these words would be spoken by
any other than Saul, for he alone had the power to keep her from
being punished.
And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth,
there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
1Samuel 28:10
Why The Disguise Saul?
By the words of Saul, it seems he realized that he had been

recognized and resigned himself to the fact of the woman knowing
who he was. Why then did Saul wear a disguise if the woman was
able to figure out his identity anyway?
It is entirely possible that Saul went in disguise to avoid
recognition by the scouts of the Philistine army. Knowing the
geographic proximity of Shunem, Gilboa, and Endor, it would
seem that Saul, in going to the “witch of Endor” would have to risk
being seen by scouts of the Philistines and a disguise would then
be necessary. Saul does not give any indication that he is
attempting to hide his identity from the “woman with the familiar
spirit.” After all, his full intention in seeking her counsel was to ask
her what to expect in the outcome of the upcoming war at Gilboa
with the Philistines.
It may also be that Saul did not want to be recognized by the
citizens of his kingdom as the King going to a witch. After all, Saul
had banned witches from the land. Therefore, it seems the woman
was simply “playing” Saul by making reference to his edict.
Perhaps Saul was not intending to hide his identity from her at all.

Typically, the person with the power to punish someone is the

person who also can assure someone they will not be punished.
The woman, by seeming to indicate she didn’t know she was in the
presence of Saul, is really just playing along with Saul and assuring
him that his audience with her is as if the King was never there.
Revealing the truth of the “unknown visitor’s” identity at just the
right moment is an act that will appear amazing and add
credibility to the woman as a seer, thereby strengthening the
charade of bringing up a spirit of a deceased person. As far as she
was concerned, if she were guaranteed to be kept from
punishment, then she would not reveal Saul’s secret and illegal act
of consulting a “medium” to the subjects of Saul’s kingdom.
I suppose after the preliminary interactions were complete,
there was a type of “honour among thieves” that was realized by
the King and the woman. Both parties were satisfied that they had
a special “doctor patient confidentiality” in place, and then the
woman asks, “Who would you like to speak with?”
Once told by Saul who he desires to have “brought up,” the

woman appears to immediately begin her conjuring. In the text as
it is written, we are left to perceive that the “spirit” of Samuel
appeared instantly. However, it can be understood that moments
of time passed for the woman to perform the customary actions,
incantations, and noises which would normally be performed in
her act of contacting dead spirits. These antics assured that the
event seemed to be even more authentic. The woman was well
aware of who the prophet Samuel was and she would also be aware
that he was an older gentleman and as a sagely prophet, would
have worn a mantle. Now fully convinced that she better deliver
the goods for this desperate and potentially maniacal King, the
woman pretends to see something and then shrieks. Her shriek
was not due to the surprise of Samuel actually appearing in spirit
form as some commentators have postulated. As a means to
explain away the idea that a woman practicing witchcraft would
not really be able to raise a deceased person's spirit with the power
of “Satan,” some commentators say this woman shrieked at the
130
surprise of a spirit actually appearing, in spite of her intent to fool

Saul with a parlour trick.
This, according to many commentators, is because God is the
one who has power over the spirits of the dead, therefore the
woman knowing she was not able to access spirits of the dead who
belonged to Yahweh would have been surprised and consequently
she “shrieked” at the appearance of Samuel. This explanation is a
good explanation if one is willing to believe Yahweh would do
something contrary to His own word. God’s word teaches that the
dead are asleep until the resurrection and that the dead don’t
know anything. The dead no longer have a portion in anything that
is taking place in this world, or “under the sun” as Ecclesiastes
puts it (Ecclesiastes 9: 5 and 6).
The Witch Didn’t See Samuel But She Pretended She Did
If the Scriptural teaching on the dead as we have discussed earlier

is true then Samuel was a lifeless, decomposing corpse, who would
be unaware of time, space, or anything. Samuel was not able to
appear in any form and Yahweh was not in the practice of having
“spirits” appear to witches as a way of scaring them straight.
Unless God chose to physically resurrect Samuel, as He had done
to certain other characters of the Bible who were in a state of
death, then there was nothing actually coming up from the ground
that day in the presence of Saul and the witch. I will state again
that for Samuel to “appear” he would have had to be resurrected in
his physical body. The text clearly says the woman saw a “spirit.”
Spirits being awakened is not a type of resurrection we can find in
the Scriptures. The only resurrections in the Bible that are outside
of the end time resurrection of the dead are all of persons who
have been dead for only four days or less. The Prophet Samuel had
been dead much longer than four days. Four days is the period
that is known by the ancients for decomposition of the human
body to begin to occur. In fact, the science of putrefaction today

reveals the smelly decomposition process becomes notable

between four and 10 days. The reason why according to
HowStuffWorks.com, is due to the enzymatic reactions and the
aging bacterial processes naturally occurring after three days. How
those were resurrected is quite contrary to the future resurrection.
If there was to be anyone returning from death in Scripture, it was
always in complete physical form by a miracle resurrection. Even
when the apostles thought that Yeshua was a “spirit” after His
resurrection, they were soon shown that He was all flesh and
blood. This dispelled the illogical thought that maybe a spirit can
come back from the dead. Samuel was neither present in spirit
form nor in the form of a physical resurrection, which has been the
mysterious privilege of only a few others in Biblical history. Below
is a list of people who were resurrected according to the Bible.
These resurrections are not contradicting the resurrection from
the dead that will occur in the future, of all who are “asleep” in the
grave. The action of resurrecting a person within a few days of
their death is hugely different from the future resurrection that
will raise to life millions of people. People who have been dead and
completely decomposed for thousands of years. Resurrecting one
who is recently dead is one type of miracle but it will appear as
minor in comparison to the future resurrection of all who have
died throughout history. Dead people do get bodily resurrected in
the Scriptures and New Testament but a spirit returning to the
physical realm is unheard of. Below is a brief list of the physical
resurrections in the Bible
 The widow's son by Elijah (1 Kings 17-24).

 The Shunammite's son by Elisha (2 Kings 4:32-35).
 A man whose body had been placed in Elisha's tomb (2
Kings 13:21).
 Lazarus by Yeshua (John 11:43-44).
 The ruler's daughter by Yeshua (Matthew 9:23-26).
 A number of people at the moment of the death of
Yeshua (Matthew 27:51-53).
132
 Some say Eutychus had in fact died and was raised back
to life through Paul after he fell out of a third-floor
window (Acts 20:9-10).
 Tabitha by Peter (Acts 9:36-43).
Is It Possible That God Gave The Woman A Vision?
I cannot dismiss the potential for Yahweh to impart a vision to a

person for reasons of getting a message to someone. He is God and
can do anything or show anything He chooses. It is possible that
the witch saw a vision of Samuel. This type of vision experience
would be along the same line as the vision of the transfiguration
scene where Elijah and Moses appear on the mount with the
Messiah. The Messiah speaks of this incident as a vision when He
tells the three who had the same vision, to “tell the vision to no
one” in Matthew 17 verse 9. The uncanniness of the episode is that
the three disciples saw the same vision, which is truly a miracle in
itself. Messiah’s words were indicating that what the three
disciples had seen was not a real physical presence, nor was it the
raised “spirits” of these prophets. It seems that these three were
given a vision by God.
The story of Balaam’s talking donkey is also said to be a
vision given by God. It was given to assist Balaam in making the
right choice to turn from his path aimed at cursing Israel. Should
visions be taken literally when surreal occurrences happen in the
Bible? That visions are presumed to be speaking of literal events is
another topic sorely misunderstood by many today. This prolific
misunderstanding is due to a view passed on by many erring
teachers and scholars through the ages. This view imposes a
miraculous, spiritual view and idea on things that were not to be
taken literally. Is it not miraculous enough that the God of the
universe speaks to us through visions and dreams that we must
apply a literal interpretation to otherwise clearly non-literal
accounts? Although the story of Balaam is not the primary focus
here I would like to help shed a little light on this tale of a speaking

donkey. One article discussing Balaam and the vision he had says
this;
While speaking animals are a common feature of

folklore, the only other case in the Old
Testament is that of the serpent in Eden.
Classical Jewish commentators, such as Saadia
Gaon, and Maimonides, taught that a reader
should not take this part of the story literally.
Rather, they explained, it should be read as an
account of a prophetic experience, which are
experienced as dreams, or as visions, and
consequently, the donkey did not actually speak.
Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz, one of the great Jewish
biblical commentators of the 20th century,
writes that these verses;
“…depict the continuance on the subconscious

plane of the mental and moral conflict in
Balaam's soul; and the dream apparition and the
speaking donkey is but a further warning to
Balaam against being misled through avarice to
violate God's command.”
Similar views have been held by E. W.

Hengstenberg and other Christian scholars,
though others, e.g. Voick, regard the statements
about the ass speaking as figurative; the ass
brayed, and Balaam translated the sound into
words.21
21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaam
134
Perhaps the speaking donkey is no different than when my

little dog looks up at me when I am mad at her for barking at the
mail-man. As I tell my wife about the little pup catching what-for
from me, I might express to her with my interpretation of the dog’s
wordless communication. Animals communicate with their
masters all the time and masters frequently put words to the
moment. It is easy to tell the story by saying Lizzy, that’s our dog,
looked at me and said, “Why can’t I bark at the guy that comes to
the door every day? He always goes away after I bark.”
Not really speaking, Lizzy certainly was communicating. And
as her master I am probably pretty close to interpreting the words
she might attach to her wordless communication after a scolding.
This is a very probable explanation for the talking donkey story of
Balaam. The dog barked and I translated the sounds into what
they might have meant in words. The donkey brayed and Balaam
translated its sound.
Saul And The Woman Feed Off Each Other To Build A

Convincing Experience
Let’s get back to our discussion about how the psychic fraud Saul
encountered was not operating under satanic inspiration. After
hearing the woman shriek and having the woman accuse Saul of
deceiving her, Saul tells her to not be afraid. This was Saul’s kingly
way of confirming to the woman that he was not going to bring
harm upon her so to just tell him what she saw. But Saul was a
King, head and shoulders above the rest and undoubtedly an
educated man. How could he have been fooled by the charade?
The answer lies in how much Saul desired to hear from Samuel
and the corroborating actions of the psychic.
Saul was easily convinced that she saw Samuel because his
desire to believe was so strong. He thought it possible to acquire
the answers he wanted from the method used by the woman. The
method the woman used was very theatrical and would still be very
convincing to many today. She had an excellent presentation and
superb acting skills. The shriek was the perfect way to convince

Saul she was seeing something. Paranormals today often engage in

theatrics as a means of convincing their clients or audience of the
validity of the experience they are having.
After her display of surprise at “seeing” a spirit, the woman
was now able to reinforce her supposed “psychic” abilities. She did
so by stating the identity of Saul as if she had just found it out
through some manner of mystical knowledge. It appears to the
reader that she had supernatural insight. However, it is a simple
fact that she would have easily identified the “unknown visitor” as
Saul, very soon after his arrival at her house. The woman’s shriek
was done for the purpose of convincing the hearer and loud
shrieking is a fairly simple ploy to convince those within earshot
that something serious was occurring.
I recall another moment in Biblical history that a shriek was
used to enhance believability of a lie. The shriek heard from
Potiphar’s wife when Joseph declined her sexual advances in his
master’s house when she wanted to convince those nearby that
Joseph had tried to rape her. A shriek can be a terrific aid in
manipulating an audience to accept that what you are saying or
doing is really happening.
Saul obviously didn’t see the “spirit” because he asks the
woman what she saw. As for the spirit of Samuel coming up from
the ground, many of the ancients who practiced divination
believed Sheol was a place under the earth that contained the
spirits of the dead. Therefore, the woman said she saw gods
ascending from the earth, which was very encouraging to Saul in
that it affirmed that contact was made. So Saul then asked her
about the appearance of the ascended spirit. In response to Saul’s
question regarding who and what the apparition looked like, the
woman answered as if she were seeing the form of a man because
Saul had just asked for Samuel to be brought up. The prophet
Samuel would not have been an unknown celebrity in that day.
Everyone likely knew of the famous Samuel and that he was an old
prophet. After all, there had recently been a national period of
mourning for the deceased prophet. The national mourning would
have only occurred under the request of the Nation’s King,
136
therefore the “witch” was completely aware that Samuel had died
and that Saul had a very serious connection to him. She knew that
a prophet of Israel, as well as prophets of other nations, would
have worn a mantle of some sort. Therefore, in describing her false
apparition as an old man with a mantle it led Saul right into
stating that it was Samuel. Fully convincing himself that the
woman was hearing from the dead prophet Samuel.
This man was so desperate by now to hear a word telling of
his future campaigns that out of relief and homage, he bowed to
the ground. In Saul’s mind, he had contacted Samuel and was
about to get some much wanted information about his next battle
and upcoming engagement.
And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and
the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for
thou art Saul.
And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And
the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man
cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that
it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and
bowed himself.
1Samuel 28:12-14 KJV
Now, fully engrossed in the moment, Saul is basically at the

mercy of the woman. It would be easy for her to say anything she
wanted to Saul because he was such a fully involved participant of
this little fraud. After all, being a resident of Israel, it would be
known by the woman that Saul had not obeyed the Torah of
Yahweh when he decided to simply cut off wizards and those with
familiar spirits from the land. If Saul had been interested in
obedience to the God of Israel, he would have “not suffered a witch
to live” as was prescribed in the Law given Moses by Yahweh.
Saul’s decision made light of the Torah of Yahweh, this was a huge
factor in predicting the fall of a King. If Saul were truly serving
God then he would have obeyed God’s word found in Exodus and
Leviticus. An anointed king of God’s people must be responsible.

Exodus 22:18 KJV

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Leviticus 20:27 KJV

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard,
shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their
blood shall be upon them.
Let’s Recap What Has Gone On So Far In Saul’s

Adventure
 Witches were banned from the land

 Samuel died
 Saul and all of Israel mourned
 Saul fears an upcoming war with the Philistines
 Saul decides to find an Ob to consult
 Saul disguises himself so the enemy won’t recognize him
 He meets the woman medium
 She recognizes him but likely pretends she doesn’t yet
 Saul asks her to contact Samuel
 The psychic sees how desperate the King is
 Saul, as the King, promises not to have her killed
 The ob gets theatrical and shrieks pretending she now
recognizes Saul
 The woman puts on a great “just called up the dead”
performance
 Saul, asks her what she sees
 She describes an old, cloak-wearing man, just what a
prophet looks like
 Saul, very anxious now, asks what the prophet says
 The ob puts together a story as if Samuel himself were there
talking to Saul
 The ob does a great performance and Saul buys it
138
The well-practiced diviner of spirits simply put on an act and

used her ventriloquist skills to make things seem as though they
are real when in fact they are not. She would have been able to
speak things that would not seem outlandish to the hearer. If she
had spoken something she sensed the hearer would not believe,
she might not only be called a fraud, but in this instance, she
would certainly be killed. It was important for her survival to make
the “message” from Samuel to be as close to what might come
from the prophet were he alive to speak. She may have chosen the
words that came forth, all on her own, but I cannot discount the
potential for unction from the true Spirit of Yahweh in this
incident. It is fully probable that Yahweh did prick the mind of the
woman to speak things that lined up with His plan for Saul. But, in
all probability, the woman, if acting as a prophet, would be in
control of the words coming from her voice, words that were then
believed by Saul to be the words of Samuel the prophet. Paul has
taught us in 1 Corinthians 14:32 that the spirit of the prophet is
subject to the prophet. This teaching seems to state, that if one is
speaking prophetically the message of God, then they are in full
control of the words that come forth. They may speak the word or
they may hold from speaking the word. I admit one may be
inspired by Yahweh as all prophets of the Most High are, but they
are actively choosing to orate, or in the case of the ventriloquist
woman with the familiar spirit, she is choosing to throw her voice
with words that agree with God’s plans and purposes.
With Saul now believing he was in the presence of Samuel’s

spirit and having his face to the ground, the woman speaks in a
ventriloquist manner saying a very common line that we can
imagine might be the words of the disturbed dead person if we
truly were able to rouse them from their state. She says, making it
sound as if it is coming from Samuel, “Why did you disturb me
from my rest?” Then Saul gives the woman a fountain of

information with which she is able to use to provide a very

convincing statement that could be believed to be from the
Prophet of God. Saul basically says; “I am scared because the
Philistines are going to have a war with me and Yahweh has left
me on my own and I don’t know what to do.” This is perfect. The
woman, as a professional medium would be well aware that the
Philistines are very powerful. She would also be well aware of
Saul’s lack of obedience to Yahweh and Saul provides the
information that Yahweh has left him. This medium would know
what the Prophets speak of a King who has been abandoned by
God and she would be very familiar with how a Prophet of Yahweh
would respond to a King whom Yahweh has departed from. This is
a woman, just like modern psychics and like psychics throughout
history, who is amazingly good at putting pieces of information
together to come up with convincing rhetoric that fits the tone and
form of the particular spirit supposedly being “raised up.”
The Art Of “Cold Reading” Has Been Around For A Long

time
The woman next performs a standard “Cold Reading” practice.

Saul had just told her, thinking he was telling Samuel, that Yahweh
had departed from him. If Samuel were with Yahweh as a spirit
while physically dead, he would have already known Yahweh had
departed from Saul. But the woman uses Saul’s words and
enhances them. Pretending to be Samuel, she recaps and says,
“Well if Yahweh is departed from you and has become your enemy,
why bother seeking me?” This was not revelational information the
woman was speaking. It was clear by Saul’s words and desperation
that Saul believed Yahweh had become his enemy. With all the
information she had about Saul’s disobedience to God, she would
be able to correctly state the fate of the King simply from her own
intellectual conclusions. In part this may be so but the oracle she
professes is still more accurate as to what ends up happening to
Saul. It is almost uncanny how a woman simply using her
140
intuition, listening skills, and ventriloquism can be so accurate in

the word she brings forth. But we will see that she received no
supernaturally revealed information because Saul’s turbulent
Kingship was easily perceived by any simpleton with a notion to
follow the career of the King of Israel.
Discussing this matter in the Comprehensive Commentary in
the Illumina Bible Parents and Teachers, Gold Edition, the writer
informs that there has long been debate about whether or not the
“raising up” of Samuel was a real and true occurrence. The writer
of that commentary has not dealt sufficiently with the subject of
there only being One God. Neither has the writer concluded that
there is no other supernatural force besides Yahweh. Untouched
topics in that article include the topic of the dead not entering a
spirit existence in a mythical “Hell,” and the topic of the dead
partaking in an eternal reward in Heaven. Had that writer come to
the Biblical conclusion that teaches the dead are without
knowledge and “asleep” until the time of the resurrection, then he
or she may have been able to form a stronger opinion on the
matter of what transpired with Saul and the “witch.” However, the
writer of the Comprehensive Commentary does present the
thought that this “witch of Endor” could have been a fraud who
was easily able to identify King Saul and to provide him with
general information that any perceptive person could have come
up with. Without any supernatural aid. Had scholars been able to
recognize the biblical teaching that says a dead person cannot
interact with humanity, then there would be no confusion in their
commentaries, questioning whether there was a real appearance of
the spirit of Samuel. Below is an excerpt that poses the question
and introduces the possibility of a fraudulent necromancing
occurring.
28:12 thou art Saul—His extraordinary stature, the
deference paid him by his aides, and the proposal to call
up the great prophet (a proposal which no private
individual would dare make) gave Saul away. The story
has led to much discussion whether there was a real
appearance of Samuel or not. On the one hand, there

was the woman’s profession forbidden by the written

law and under government ban; there was Saul’s state
of mind upon finding closed to him the legitimate
channels to God; the well-known age, figure, and dress
of Samuel, which could easily be represented by an
accomplice or merely described realistically by the
medium, allowing the consultant to provide the
identification; the fact that the figure never comes
close; Saul’s prostrate posture for most of the séance;
the generalizations of Samuel regarding Saul’s rejection
by the Lord, about which any informed Israelite could
be expected to know and the vagueness of the military
prediction beyond that of total defeat, which any
perceptive person could predict, once the state of the
mind of the king was known. 22
For the people of Israel to know of Saul’s shortcomings as an

obedient king, is by no means a stretch. Saul repeatedly disobeyed
Yahweh, and Samuel the prophet was always there to tell Saul the
result of his disobedience. To believe the announcement to Saul by
Samuel was heard only by Saul and Samuel and was not a word
that was spread through the nation of Israel would be a myopic
view. Any word that Samuel brought to Saul would have been well
known by the citizens of the kingdom. The significance of a
Prophet of God actually proclaiming the end of the reign for a King
of Israel, in fact the end of the reign of the first King of Israel,
would be known far and wide throughout the land in a very short
period. It is an understatement to say that the people, let alone a
woman who is a professional “psychic,” would not know of the
pronouncements against Saul. Let’s look at the times Saul
disobeyed God and was given word of his eventual destruction and
loss of his kingdom.
22
Comprehensive Commentary in the Ilumina Bible Parents and Teachers, Gold
Edition, Zondervan Publishing
142
It Was Well Known That Saul Was On The Outs With God
The first year of Saul’s kingship had Samuel giving Saul some
explicit instruction. Saul was told to wait seven days, and then
Samuel would come and show Saul what to do and how to sacrifice
in the appropriate manner. When Saul and his army were
preparing to battle the Philistines, who had amassed a huge army,
Saul had been instructed by Samuel to wait for his return and
then, as in an earlier time of asking Saul to wait, Samuel would
come to perform sacrifices with and for the Israelites. This time
Saul had been King for more than two years and when Samuel did
not show up early enough in the seventh day; Saul went ahead and
performed the sacrifices on his own. Saul must have figured he
could handle it as he had done sacrifices with Samuel before.
Although it was done in accordance with the Prophet’s instructions
the previous time in 1st Samuel 10. Saul was then told of the
impending loss of his Kingdom because of his lack of keeping the
word of God.
9 And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace
offerings. And he offered the burnt offering.
10 And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of
offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out
to meet him, that he might salute him.
11 And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I
saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest
not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered
themselves together at Michmash;
12 Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to
Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto Yahweh: I forced
myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.
13 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not
kept the commandment of Yahweh thy God, which he commanded
thee: for now would Yahweh have established thy kingdom upon
Israel for ever.

14 But now thy kingdom shall not continue: Yahweh hath sought
him a man after his own heart, and Yahweh hath commanded him
to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which
Yahweh commanded thee.
1Samuel 13:9-14 KJV
In 1st Samuel chapter 15, the rejection of Saul by Yahweh

because of Saul’s sin is announced. Saul had been instructed to
destroy everyone and everything of the Amalekites’ but he allows
the people to take livestock away from the siege for purpose of
sacrificing and Saul himself took the king of the Amalekites away
for purposes that are undisclosed in the text. This was rebellion
and stubbornness against Yahweh and was one more time where
Saul chose his own path instead of heeding the command of
Yahweh.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as

iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of
Yahweh, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have
transgressed the commandment of Yahweh, and thy words: because
I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
25 Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with
me, that I may worship Yahweh.
26 And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou
hast rejected the word of Yahweh, and Yahweh hath rejected thee
from being king over Israel.
27 And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the
skirt of his mantle, and it rent.
28 And Samuel said unto him, Yahweh hath rent the kingdom of
Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine,
that is better than thou.
29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is
not a man, that he should repent.
30 Then he said, I have sinned: yet honour me now, I pray thee,
before the elders of my people, and before Israel, and turn again
with me, that I may worship Yahweh thy God.
31 So Samuel turned again after Saul; and Saul worshipped
Yahweh.
144
1Samuel 15:23-31
It is the actions of Saul, his acts of rebellion, which cause him

to come under the punishing hand of Yahweh. Saul had chosen to
act out of arrogance. He preferred his own will instead of Yahweh’s
will. Yahweh had now sent Samuel the prophet to find and anoint
the next king of Israel. The anointing of David the shepherd boy is
the result of Samuel’s journey to the tribe of Jesse. David will be
the shoot that comes forth from Jesse and then a “Branch” comes
forth from that shoot. Which means a line of Kingship resulting in
the appearance of the Messiah will come from this tribal line.
Because of Saul’s rebellion, we see how Saul more and more
becomes an almost tyrannical leader with attributes of a lunatic.
This is often, if not always, the result of choosing to be our own
God and abide by our own rules when we have clearly been given
the word of Yahweh. I mentioned it earlier in Volume 1 but I will
mention it again. The whole context of Saul’s disobedience is the
reason Yahweh did what the text says he did to Saul. For all of
those who do not yet see that evil spirits come from Yahweh,
please consider that Saul now was sent an evil spirit from Yahweh
because of Saul’s continued disobedience to Yahweh. This spirit
was not a “satanic” spirit with the need to be cast out by a spiritual
warfare fanatic. This “evil spirit” came from God. God was not
pleased with Saul and He acted accordingly.
But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit
from the LORD troubled him.
And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from
God troubleth thee.
All that happened to Saul would have been heard of by many

in Israel and any psychic worth her salt, would have had ways of
keeping tabs on the leader of her nation. So if given the chance,
they could use the information to speak a word to the King.
Therefore, Saul’s “psychic” would have known of the prophet
Samuel. She would have known of what was spoken by the prophet

Samuel and what was to come of Saul’s kingship and kingdom. The
“psychic” would have known that Saul was not in the favour of
Yahweh and that Saul desperately wanted to hear from the
deceased prophet. The “psychic” also would have known that
Samuel, a prophet of Yahweh, would speak in a very precise
manner that would be detectable to King Saul, when he heard this
manner of speaking. Therefore, the “psychic” was able to imitate
the style and probable content according to how Samuel would
have spoken, if he were actually present. The text says Saul fell to
the ground because of the words of Samuel. This statement might
cause some to believe the Bible is telling us that indeed it was
Samuel who spoke. However, what is being displayed is that Saul
wholeheartedly believed the words he was hearing were words
spoken by Samuel. Had he believed otherwise then we would see
no such behaviour as is seen when Saul becomes greatly afraid and
falls to the ground. The text depicts Saul’s level of belief not that
what he believed was true. Are you able to see how the woman is
just feeding Saul what she knows will work to keep herself from
harm and to appease Saul? Look at the statements that the woman
spoke through ventriloquism while pretending they were from
Samuel. Her job was to make Saul think she actually had the
power to call up a dead spirit and extract information from him.
15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring
me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines
make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth
me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have
called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.
16 Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the
LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?
17 And the LORD hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the LORD
hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy
neighbour, even to David:
18 Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst
his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this
thing unto thee this day.
19 Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the
hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be
146
with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand
of the Philistines.
20 Then Saul fell straightway all along on the earth, and was sore
afraid, because of the words of Samuel: and there was no strength in
him; for he had eaten no bread all the day, nor all the night.
The story concludes with the woman and the servants of Saul
persuading Saul to eat something. Saul eventually goes to war with
the Philistines and upon seeing defeat and impending execution as
unavoidable, Saul kills himself on the battlefield. Saul had been
such a man of failing integrity and yet filled with such arrogance
that he continued to move forward in war, even though the
massive Philistine army did not only outnumber Israel but by
Saul’s own testimony, Yahweh had departed from Saul. The
arrogance of this once great King and servant of the most high had
truly reached its pinnacle. In essence, the words of the
ventriloquist woman with the familiar spirit were words the
prophet Samuel could have spoken, but they did not come by way
of supernatural impartation from Yahweh or from a supposed
demonic force. However, the woman was wise enough to be able to
articulate the message Samuel would have had for the now pitifully
desperate and fearful king. After all, if one follows the
development of the nation of Israel one will see that the Prophet
Samuel was the only ecclesiastical and governmental authority in
Israel before the nation called for a King to be appointed. At that
call, Samuel had not wanted the type of a monarchy that was about
to be implemented in Israel but Yahweh moved him to choose and
anoint Saul. Now Israel was defeated under Saul and Saul and his
sons were dead after Saul impaled himself on his own sword.
These things happened in very much the manner they were
prophesied by Samuel who was imitated by the “woman with the
familiar spirit.” The message the woman gave was a cleverly
constructed version of messages already given to Saul. It happened
that she was sought out by the fearful King at the perfect moment
in time. A time where Yahweh could bring about the fulfillment of
his well orchestrated destruction of an ungodly King who turned

from service to the Creator, only to behave much the same as a

pagan king might behave.
And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him; and
he was sore wounded of the archers.
Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust
me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me
through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was
sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise
upon his sword, and died with him.
So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his
men, that same day together.
1Samuel 31:3-6 KJV
Well What About Saul And The Witch Of Endor…?
How can I conclude this chapter? A chapter that has outlined how
Saul was the victim of his own desires and was deceived by the
astute abilities of an intuitive woman. A woman said to be a witch
of sorts, who claimed to possess the ability to tap into the
supernatural. Well if you recall the early pages of this volume we
talked about the “Well what abouts...!” Remember the “Well what
abouts…”? They are often the questions posed by those who want
to believe there is a “Satan.” In their mind statements such as,
“Well what about Saul and the witch of Endor…?” are the trump
card statements. These statements, that contain verses taken from
the Bible, are, according to the one who presents them, supposed
to “prove” Satan is real during an argument about a cosmic
archenemy of God and man. The question that asks, “Well what
about the witch of Endor?” invariably comes up when one is
confronted with the concept of there not being a “Satan.”
There are those who refuse to consider, from multiple angles
and sources, that there might not be a “Satan.” They see the Endor
story as one that supports an existence of a “Satan” and choose to
adhere to the misunderstanding they currently have. Failing to
148
seek out the answers through diligent study, prayer, and thought,
they agree with the theologians who have simply adopted the
doctrines of the many theologians that came before them. Their
views originate from the early part of the first century where there
were men who influenced the thoughts of the next theologians and
the next were fed by those and so on. It results in a false apostolic
succession of false doctrine and heretical beliefs. As well, they
believe they “understand” what “Satan” is from the way they see it
in the Greek New Testament.
The prevailing view of the account at Endor is one where a
witch is calling up real, dead spirits and therefore is operating in
the power of some demonic entity that is seen to be “Satan.”
Unable to reconcile the rest of the incidents in the Hebrew
Scriptures that reveal the “adversary,” “evil spirits,” and “unclean
spirits” as coming from God, they land squarely on the witch of
Endor story and conclude that there must be a “Satan” for this
kind of a spirit manifestation to occur. Their conclusion is based
on a belief in the supposed supernatural power of psychics and
mediums. I am here to tell you that the witch of Endor story does
not point to the power of a supernatural “Satan.” If it can’t be
stated with 100% certainty that the woman was acting only on her
own, to orchestrate the fraudulent manifestation and the delivery
of messages from the deceased Samuel, then what I am able to
concede and state with certainty is this;
Yahweh is the only orchestrator of all things great and small.
The God of the Universe allows the actions of all people to bring
about His will at times. Perhaps Yahweh even used this “witch.” If,
as the word “Ob” indicates, this woman was a professional who
deceived people as a ventriloquist, then perhaps she was placed in
King Saul’s path for a reason. In this instance, her desire to deceive
people was used by Yahweh to remind King Saul of the message
that his destruction was at hand.
If this sounds like I am leaning on the thoughts of hundreds
of commentators before me who say God raised up the spirit of a
dead person then you are not hearing correctly. I am saying the
woman was being used by God to speak words that were timely for

the hearer. Just as dozens of times in my life and perhaps in your

life, words came forth consciously from the mouth of another
living person that confirmed a thought or a decision that was to be
made, so too did the words already told King Saul get spoken again
by the ventriloquist. It was spoken however, not by the real
Samuel, but by a woman pretending to hear from Samuel.
As the woman with the familiar spirit was just going along in
her path of life so too were those who have delivered messages
God wanted me to hear at certain times in my life. The person
speaking the message simply spoke those words “into” my life at
the appropriate moment. This is what is happening with the
woman with the familiar spirit. She is doing her thing, just like
every other day. Even amidst her desire to deceive, Yahweh
allowed all the pieces of her understanding and perceptive,
intuitive abilities, to work together at the right time in the right
fashion. So, when she pretended to “raise up” Samuel’s spirit and
have him speak from beyond the grave, which is an utter
impossibility, she was speaking the words Yahweh wanted Saul to
hear. When we stop and think of all the times in our lives a person
spoke something that was just what we needed to hear, we should
surely be able to comprehend how God has used unwitting and
sometimes unworthy vessels to get a message to one of His
children. It is clear that God uses people and the case of the “witch
of Endor” may be no exception.
Is there then a picture of satanic power being displayed in the Saul
and the witch of Endor story? I would have to say absolutely not.
For anyone who has or is seeing a “Satan” behind the scenes
of this simple story they would be wise to consider how history,
culture, and context have shown that Satan is not in control of the
spirits of the dead. Moreover in fact, because Satan does not exist,
the “Well what about Saul and the witch of Endor” statement can
be answered through proving the encounter to be nothing more
than a clever party trick that fooled a desperate man into believing
it was an actual message from beyond the grave. Satan has no
influence over the dead or over psychics. All psychics, great and
150
small, use talents, skills, and abilities that are part of a purely
human realm.

152
CH AP TE R 5
Where Was Satan Before Jesus
Showed Up?
In the thoughts presented in Volume 1, we shared information that

is an indictment of the fabricated concept of “Satan.” There are
glaring flaws and inconsistencies in the belief that an evil creature
exists who has supernatural power to affect those subjected to it.
We have seen through Volume I, that the character of “Satan” at
best is a divine messenger of Yahweh as in the story of Balaam. A
story about the “adversary” from God standing in the way of
Balaam and his donkey. The adversary here is the word sawtawn.
We have also seen how the character of “Satan” is either a person
acting as an accuser, or a divine dispatch from God. We see a
human adversary in the Job story and again in Zechariah when
resistance is evident to Joshua being made the High Priest.
Another form of Satan we are given in the Scriptures is one
that is the most prevalent and the most comprehensive. In Judges
9, 1 Samuel 29, 2 Samuel 19, 1 Kings 5, and 1 Kings 11, the “satan”
is always a human being who is acting in the capacity of an
adversary or one who opposes another. This most typical use of
the “satan” is common in the “New Testament.” A shining example
of Satan being a human is found in the instance where the Messiah
calls Peter “Satan.” In that instance, Peter was opposing the things
of God and preferred the things of men. Thus making him a
satanas, this is to say an adversary. That story can be read in
Matthew 16 and Mark chapter 8.
If what we have learned so far in Satan Christianity’s Other
God and Imagine There’s No Satan about Satan is accurate, then
CHAPTER 5 – Where Was Satan Before Jesus Showed Up? 153

we can agree to move on and apply what we have learned to other

Biblical passages. Conversely, if all we have discussed so far is
closer to fiction than to fact, then we both have wasted our time on
this book. For sake of argument, suppose all of what has been
shared in Volume 1 of Satan Christianity’s Other God could be
considered fact. Do we then stop here and accept the typical
Christian concept of “Satan” as false, exploring no further? Are we
simply supposed to accept we can exist in a world with no Satan, a
world where man is the one with the power to choose good or evil
and that this power is built right into the very fiber of the human
composition? Should we then just take a leap together and claim
that all the appearances of Satan, demons, and devils in the “New
Testament” are misinterpretations of something else? Should we
accept all that we have learned in these volumes so far, and expect
that we fully comprehend how the concept of a “cosmic Satan”
became so entrenched in the theology and philosophy of present
day culture? Maybe for some the answer to these questions is
“Yes,” and you will be able to stand confidently on what the
ancient Hebrew Scriptures teach about the concept of “adversary.”
After all, all doctrine is supposed to be taken from the Hebrew
Scriptures and not from the New Testament. The New Testament
is a compilation of letters that has brought so much confusion
because of the overstating of its significance that it is derided by
scholars and said to be incomprehensible. The opinion of many is
that it is completely an unreliable anthology of redacted myth and
conjecture. To put it bluntly, many say the New Testament is
meaningless towards displaying truth.
Perhaps at this point you are able to realize that anything
that disagrees with the concept of satan as it is expressed in the
Hebrew Scriptures, is then incorrect and needs to be re-
understood using the “Old Testament” as the filter for
understanding. However, many of us will want to have other
questions considered. Questions about what kind of ideas of
“Satan” were around in the inter-testamental period? The inter-
testamental period is commonly believed to be the period of time
between the writing of the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures and
154
the “New Testament.” Perhaps there are questions as to the

validity of the “New Testament.” Questions that ask if those in the
first century who wrote the letters and gospels and those who were
the hearers of the writings, believed them to be Scripture on a level
equal to that of the Tanak, the Hebrew Scriptures? The Hebrew
Scriptures is the volume that contains the Torah the Psalms and
the Prophets.
Did Hebrew People Understand Satan The Same As We

Do?
If we want to find out about the evolution of Christianity’s
Satan, perhaps it would be wise to question how the Hebrew
worldview compared to the Greek worldview. After all, wouldn’t
the first century followers of Messiah have been Jewish, and
therefore their writings and stories would have been written from
a Hebraic/Jewish perspective? Why then does the Greek ideology
seem to flow from the words of the first century Hebrew apostles
in the writings we have today? Do the different worldviews affect
the result of our search to understand how “Satan” is perceived?
Should we consider what “demons” were in the period leading up
to the first century and if they were categorically believed to be
malevolent beings, under the rule of a cosmic leader called Satan?
A super-demon, working feverishly to impose misery on
humankind because he and his demons are themselves assigned to
misery forever. This seems to intimate a concept that the
“demons” must have followed a “misery loves company”
philosophy.
It would be helpful to consider how the Egyptian God Set
may be a link to the name “Satan” as worship of Set was
transformed under the Chaldean empire to the worship of
"Shaitan.” Paul Carus makes note of a Set connection to Satan on
pg 28 of his work from 1900 CE titled, The History Of The Devil
and the Idea of Evil From the Earliest Times to the Present Day;

‘Set’, the great and strong god of prehistoric times, was

converted into Satan with the rise of the worship of
Osiris.
Our journey through Volume one and up until this point has
been a lengthy one, and it does not prove to be coming to an end in
a few short statements or quick pages of text. I am however,
interested in discussing the questions that we are now presented
with. When we have sufficiently considered some answers to the
above mentioned questions we will be able to move on to
explanations of the difficult words of the “New Testament.”
Volumes 3 and 4 are available to explain those passages fully. The
New Testament is a compilation of documents, which by even the
most rudimentary scholarly inspection, contains so much Hebraic
element and embroils so much controversy as to whether or not it
is a valid “Holy” document, that one must be suspect of the present
day understanding and meaning of its content as it refers to
“Satan.” It is fair to question all the associated terminology
surrounding “Satan” that can be found in the New Testament.
How Did We Get From There To Here?
Thankfully, we are not left to the strict confines of only the “New
Testament” to find understanding of the transition of the word
“satan” from its meaning as the behaviour of a person, to being
interpreted as an autonomous personality. Clues are found in the
Book of Enoch, which is an inter-testamental writing of the
apocalyptic variety. These clues may aid us in understanding the
metamorphosis that took place. Looking there and elsewhere, we
will see how the concept of an adversary as portrayed through the
Hebrew word “sawtawn” was turned into a cosmic being,
becoming a literal entity in the minds of men. It is thought that
this evil being ruled parts of the earth and the air and uses
supernatural power to affect the lives of humans with an ultimate
goal to take over the Universe. It is said by some that the first
156
appearance in writings of the actual term ”Satan” as being

intended to speak of the malevolent being, occurs in the Book of
Enoch. Somehow we should be able to see how “the adversary”
concept of the Hebrew Scriptures came to be understood as the
“Satan” concept of later eras.
How did we get from there to here? There must be a path
that shows the transmogrification of this concept. In History of the
Devil, Paul Carus talks of the transition period from ancient pre-
exilic ideology to that which was present in the few centuries
before Messiah arrived for the first time as a man. Carus has done
an amazing job at tracing the History of the Devil, and in one
chapter titled; “The Dawn of A New Era” Carus explains the
evolving thought on evil and the “Devil” which took place as a
result of the Hebrew people being in close and comfortable contact
with the Persians and other nations of influence. An environment
that would foster assimilation for even the most devout religious
groups and cultures.
THE TRANSITION from the Old to the New

Testament is an age of unrest. The Jews had
become familiar with the civilisation of Assyria
and Babylonia, and enjoyed friendly relations
with the Persians. But the intercourse and
general exchange of thought among the nations
of Western Asia became more extended and
grew livelier since Alexander the Great's time,
for now Greek as well as Indian views mixed
and produced a powerful fermentation in the
religious beliefs of the people.
Formerly procreation of children was regarded

as a duty and the acquisition of wealth as a
blessing, now it became known that there were

also people who sought salvation in absolute

chastity and poverty.
There are especially three ideas which

dominated the whole movement and acted as a
leaven in the dough: the idea of the spirituality
of the soul, the hope of the soul's escape from
bodily existence, and the method of obtaining
this liberation by wisdom (σοφία) or
23
enlightenment (γνῶσις).
Did Special Knowledge Bring Them Closer To God?
Carus was familiar with the Gnostic pursuit of knowledge as a

means to salvation. He recognized the adoption, by certain
religions, of the false doctrine of “the immortal soul.” As well, the
almost purely Gnostic doctrine of the soul being able to leave the
body to dwell in a state of liberty and freedom from the confines of
a sick and dying physical form. Carus was not afraid to put his
finger on the origins of some of these doctrines and point out the
fact that they are not from the Scriptures but from other pagan
cultures. Carus also saw the transition period, which is known as
the intertestamental period by most of us today, as one of diverse
concepts that became grafted into the faith of the people who came
to be called the Jews. These pagan, unbiblical doctrines moved
into the faith of Christianity. The period of time that consisted of
the few hundred years BC up until the Apostles came on the scene,
was a time in the history of the Hebrew people where further
assimilation took place. By assimilation, I am referring to the
process of adding the beliefs and ideas of other nations to the
longstanding beliefs and ideas of the people of Yahweh. Little-by-
23
The History Of The Devil and the Idea of Evil From the Earliest Times to the Present
Day; by Paul Carus [1900] Open Court Publishing pages 137 and 138
158
little the intertestamental, Hebrew society began to take on the

characteristics of other nations. The confusing aspect of the
Hebrews’ assimilation is that it developed without abandoning all
of the biblical patterns of worship and their belief in Yahweh. The
Hebrew people believed they were gaining true knowledge of the
Creator when in fact they were simply adding to the Faith of their
fathers, while all the time thinking they were remaining true to the
faith found in the Scriptures. The period I am speaking of is a time
when there appeared on the scene a number of now ancient
writings, which are known as apocalyptic literature. For a good
example of what is meant by “apocalyptic” writing, you may want
to consider the book of Daniel. The book of Daniel is probably one
of the source materials for many of the apocalyptic writings
composed between 200 BC and 200 AD.
Many scholars try to assign a late date for the composing of
Daniel as they lump it in with the rest of the apocalyptic writings,
however the book of Daniel has been agreed to be more authentic
and actually written very close to the period that the stories from
the text of Daniel are set in. There are many chronological
benchmarks in Daniel that cause it to be believed to be written at a
much earlier date than books such as Enoch and the “Book of
Noah.” However, these latter writings were not composed by those
men who the writings are named after. And scholar after scholar
has affirmed the unauthenticated nature of those works. It has
been affirmed that works such as Enoch were derived from the
writings of authors who lived a great number of years after the
time of Enoch for instance. In “The Old Enemy, Satan and the
Combat Myth” the author informs us that;
In post exilic times among the disenfranchised

sects of Palestine, a group of writings, chiefly
visions of the transmundane world, was
composed and attributed to Enoch. 24
24
Pg 161 “The Old Enemy, Satan and the Combat Myth” by Neil Forsyth copyright
1987 by Princeton University Press

We have gone into great detail in an earlier chapter about the

situation and results of the Hebrew people being in exile in
Babylon and Persia (see Chapter 7 of Volume I), so we will let what
has been said stand on its own. Presently, we are aiming to discuss
the situation and the results of stimulus and influences
encountered in the intertestamental period that furthered the
development of a concept of “Satan.” A concept that diverted
significantly from the Biblical adversary concept with the
understanding of the “yetzer ha ra”25 of man. That being, a
concept that explained man has a good inclination and an evil
inclination; and it is from the evil inclination that evil proceeds.
These subtle but profound alterations to true monotheistic Biblical
faith occurred in the years and centuries after the “Jews” were sent
back to Jerusalem to build the Temple. This period was a period
when Hellenized Jews composed literature to try to explain things
that were hard to explain. Things that many saw as evil but did not
feel comfortable suggesting these “evils” came from Yahweh. From
there a mythical devil began to develop into a literal personal
being.
What Did These Devils Do?
Things such as epileptic seizures or storms that wiped out crops,

things such as the death of a child or the color and behaviour of
another race of people all were explained through the creative
writings of the intertestamental period authors. Anything that the
writers saw as being difficult to understand and explain was
credited to the evil spirits. The influences of mystic religious
philosophy that came from Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, India, Persia,
Greece, and other nations, all played a role in how the apocalyptic
writers explained ancient Biblical stories and present day
25
Yetzer ha ra; the evil inclination in man which works against the good inclination,
known as the Yetzer tov, and is to be overcome to allow the good inclination to become
the dominant side of the good- evil balance in man.
160
occurrences. Common-place events and situations, which today

are easily explained and understood through scientific principles.
The understanding of the ancients for things like volcanic activity
or lightening shooting across the sky that we take for granted
because of science, were believed by many of the uninformed
ancient peoples to be the acts of an angry God. Gods that came to
be seen as demons by people of other religions and cultures.
The Powerful Force Of Changing Philosophies Affected

Many Religions
I cannot express too much, how pervasive and devastating the

influence of Ancient Near Eastern culture was on the faith of the
Hebrews. This devastating effect has become a fulcrum point for
rabbinic Judaism, Kabbalistic Philosophy, Islamic Religion,
Roman Catholic Religion, and Protestant Christianity. The
intensely profound and deeply rooted practices and beliefs of the
Ancient Near Eastern cultures are so intricately woven together
with the major faiths of the world that these major faiths believe
they are enjoying a true and pure “Holy” faith, when in fact they
are experiencing an extremely subtle mix of faith practices. This
unholy mix contains parts of a faith delivered by Yahweh to His
people combined with parts of pagan practices seen in pagan
cultures. These pagan cultures were not given a revelation of
Yahweh as a nation at the foot of Mount Sinai. The Israelite
nation, when appointed for chastisement by Yahweh, continued to
suffer the consequences of assimilation. This is really no surprise
and as I mentioned before, the God of the Universe had told His
people through the prophet Moses that they will eventually turn
from him, do wickedness, and then be scattered to the ends of the
earth. While scattered they will lose their identity and worship
other gods. The eventual apostasy of His chosen nation was all
expected to happen according to the Creator as recorded in
Deuteronomy.

And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end
of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other
gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood
and stone.
The idea of a “Satan” was not a concept Israel ascribed to

prior to experiencing exile and prospering among other nations,
nations that had a dualistic philosophy. Some scholars claim the
idea of “Satan” came from Egypt, some say it came from Persia
and Babylon and others say it came from India. In fact, all of these
cultures added concepts to the development of Satan. Where it
came from is not crucial to understanding that the “satan” doctrine
was not an ancient biblical doctrine. Satan is a character that has
many qualities gleaned from the influence of many nations, to
state that it entirely and specifically came from one geographical
location or another is not possible. The following is how one writer
puts it;
Like most cases, whether something was "from

India" or "from Egypt" is still a raging debate,
but though there may be a somewhat small link
in India, the real link in this case is greater in
Egypt. However, let's not make the mistake of
believing that the current Satan is one figure. In
reality, he's a system of characters from across
the globe, a conglomeration of Sumerian to
Greek and apocolyptic Jewish beliefs. The first,
and most important, was from Egypt, where he
was called Set. 26
Hearing from Joseph Ennemoser once again in “The History

of Magic,” he tells us the dualistic teaching of the good and evil
26
http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/history.html “The Epic History of Good and
Evil”
162
principle as a concept, are very similar among the Chaldeans,

Indians, and Egyptians as well as the Babylonians. Repeatedly
historians testify that the dualistic view of a good force that is
separate from an evil force was common to pagan nations.
Ennemoser informs that even though a dualistic philosophy was
common to some it was missing from the true monotheistic
philosophy that was unique to Israel. Referring to the Babylonians
that were taken over by the Persian Empire where the “Jews” were
released from exile, Ennemoser says this;
From this last country the Jews, after their

captivity, brought magic and theurgy with the
whole Oriental demonology; that sorcery which
was so sternly forbidden by Moses, awoke in
the spirit of the medo-persic dogmatism,
through their idea of the devil and angels, with
their various ranks, striking such deep roots
that it was no more to be eradicated.27
Basically, from the time of exile until the early first century,
the false concept of demonology was developing and growing
wings. Once this teaching had become mainstream and had been
around long enough, it took on the facade of truth and was broadly
accepted by those in the Roman Empire and beyond.
One other author who writes extensively on this topic is
Gerald Messandie. In his compilation of the curious history of
humanity’s supposed greatest foe, he espouses that from the
middle of the 5th century BCE until 53 BC and later, the Jews were
on particularly good terms with the Persians. It was from the
religion of the Persians, called Zoroastrianism, the Jews picked up
a number of concepts. Some of these concepts are; the immortality
of the soul, angels, and Satan. The Essenes, the group believed to
be the compilers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, are the ones who focused
27
pg 221 volume One, The History of Magic; by J Ennemoser, University Book,1970

on “satan” the most. The Pharisees and Sadducees had a limited

focus on this character.28
The views mentioned above are all nearly identical in their
conclusions of the evolution of the “Satan” motif through the inter-
testamental period right into Christianity. Looking now at some
information about the book of Enoch will help us to see that path.
Most scholars conclude the book of Enoch was written around the
2nd century BCE. Paul Carus tells us it may have been written in
about 110 BC.
It is a pity that we do not possess the original,

but only an Ethiopian version of the Book of
Enoch, which has been translated into German
by Dr. A. Dillmann, for it is of great interest to
the historian. It breathes the spirit of a Judaistic
Gnosticism, and it is probable that the original
Book of Enoch was written in the year 110 B. C.
by a Jew of the Pharisee party.29
Is Christianity A Form Of Gnosticism?
Also writing about this apocryphal book, Carus notes the unusual
feel of this literary work and how on all levels it doesn’t even hold
up to Gnostic doctrine.
As a side point about Gnosticism, if you find opportunity to

explore the diverse attributes of the belief system of the Gnostics,
you will see, that just as in Christianity, Gnosticism had and has
many contrasting and contrary doctrines and beliefs throughout
the various sects. Like Christianity as a whole today, the Gnostic
28
“A History of The Devil” G. Messandie, 1997,Published in America in 1997 by
Kodansha and originally published in France in 1993
29
The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil from the Earliest Times to the Present
Day– Paul Carus, Open Court Publishing Co.1900 and Dover Books 2008 pg 145
164
faith can be seen to be a generally disorderly and confusing

conglomeration of pick and choose concepts that define individual
group status and consciousness. Carus says this;
A peculiarly interesting apocryphal work is

ascribed to the patriarch Enoch.
The book of Enoch undertakes to explain in

allegorical form God's plan of the world's
history. The book is not yet Christian but shows
many traces of doctrines professed by the sects
which appeared at the beginning of the Christian
era as competitors of Christianity.
While Enoch's demonology smacks of the

religious myths of the Gentiles, his ideas of
salvation from evil betray Gnostic tendencies.
We read, for example, in Chapter 42:
"Wisdom came to live among men and found no dwelling-

place. Then she returned home and took her seat among
the angels."
We read of the Messiah, commonly designated

"the son of a woman," sometimes "the son of
man," and once "the son of God," that he existed
from the beginning:30
Enoch, that is the book of Enoch, is thought to have

attempted to define and explain deep mysteries, which were
otherwise not concretely explainable to religious minded
30
The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil from the Earliest Times to the Present
Day– Paul Carus, Open Court Publishing Co.1900 and Dover Books 2008 pg 143

individuals. Incorporating ancient mysticism as a means to

describe angelic and demonic activity was a specialty of the writer,
or writers of Enoch. The book was mistakenly believed by some to
be written by the character Enoch. It was given the name of the
biblical character in Genesis who was known to walk with God and
was believed to be taken up to Heaven without dying a physical
death. We discussed the errors in that particular belief about
Enoch previously in Chapter 1.
And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he
builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his
son, Enoch.
Genesis 4:17 KJV
A Name Means Everything … If It’s Famous
The attachment of names of “famous” persons to writings, so as to

lend credibility to them, was a common and acceptable practice at
the time. No one really questioned a writer who wrote a book and
named it after another, even if the other person had long been
dead. Today if I called this book you are reading right now, “The
Bill Gates Revelation of Satan,” I would be legally accountable for
such a claim. Using the name of a famous person to validate a
written document is not acceptable today; however, in the early
Common Era (CE) and Before Common Era (BCE) periods, one
could put any name he or she wanted on a writing and falsely
claim some famous dead person had written it. Such is the body of
literature known as the Psuedepigrapha, a group of writings
written under pseudonyms or “false names.”
The book of Enoch gained notoriety in its day because of the
title of the book and because of information one could extract that
seemed to explain things that were difficult to explain. Things such
as the fall of Satan from Heaven were encountered in the writings
of “Enoch.” As one of numerous apocalyptic works, Enoch did
what all apocalyptic works seemed to do, that was to harmonize
Moses and his law with the philosophical ideas of the time. Jude, a
one-chapter letter reluctantly placed in the “New Testament” by
166
the Catholic men who decided on the contents of the present “New
Testament” canon, is said to be quoting from the book of Enoch
when remarks about the “devil” are made in his letter.
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he

disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a
railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Jude 1:9 KJV
We will address the statements in Jude about Satan more

fully in Volume 4. For the moment though, please know the quote
found in Jude that is said to be from Enoch is probably a quote
from Psalms 107.
Psalms 107:10-12 LITV

Those who live in the darkness, and in the shadow of death, being
prisoners in affliction and iron, because they rebelled against the
Words of God, and despised the counsel of the Most High; and He
humbled their heart by toil; they stumbled, and none were helping;
What was believed by a noted, early “Christian” leader to be a

quote from the book of Enoch, gave the book of Enoch even
greater credibility among early Christians. The Book of Enoch
however, concisely states that Michael led the accusations against
the Satan, called Azazel and Shemihazah, as is seen from Enoch
1:9-10.
"And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel

looked down from heaven and saw much blood
being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness
being wrought upon the earth. And they said
one to another: 'The earth made without
inhabitant carries the voice of their cryings up
to the gates of heaven. And now to you, the holy
ones of heaven, the souls of men make their

suit, saying, "Bring our cause before the Most

High."' And they said to the Lord of the ages:
'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and
God of the ages, the throne of Thy glory
standeth unto all the generations of the ages,
and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed
unto all the ages!
Thou hast made all things, and power over all

things hast Thou: and all things are naked and
open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all things,
and nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou
seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught
all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the
eternal secrets which were preserved in
heaven, which men were striving to learn: And
Shemihazah, to whom Thou hast given authority
to bear rule over his associates. And they have
gone to the daughters of men upon the earth,
and have slept with the women, and have defiled
themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of
sins. And the women have borne giants, and the
whole earth has thereby been filled with blood
and unrighteousness" (I En. 9:1-10, translated
by R.H. Charles, 1912).
Apocalyptic writings such as the Books of Enoch, the

Assumption of Moses, and the Apocalypse of Baruch came at a
time when the Hellenistic Jewish system of worship was being
established. At that time the prime movers in the developing new
faith wanted to coalesce their Hellenic view on God and theology
with the view that Moses had passed down. Moses’ view was a view
that truly was the theology of Yahweh. The early Gnostic Christian
168
view was a cloudy mixture of good with bad. A view that distorted
a Hebraic biblical idea by infusing it with a Greek mystical
revision.
The intervening years before the Common Era or there-
about, were years when the concepts and beliefs that would
become “Christianity” were formed. The apocalyptic works played
a major role in furthering concepts such as the existence of “Satan”
and the impact of the “fallen angels.” The “Fallen Angels” became
known as demons in the minds of postexilic “Jews” and continued
to be known as such after the time of Messiah by Christians. An
article in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia speaks
about the Hellenization of the early “Christian” era. This early,
first century, religious structure, which formed Christianity, would
be more properly referred to as the Gnostic era that is an offshoot
of various ancient religious philosophies. In the ISBE article on
Apocalyptic Literature, we are told of the desire to harmonize the
true ancient faith of Moses with the Hellenized philosophy that
was present in that day. This point is important so I will restate it.
The intention of the apocalyptic writings was to
harmonize the Greek version of God’s religion with the
Hebrew version of God’s religion. Man began changing
God to fit his own perceptions of what God and true
religion should look like. The Hebrew religion was
altered by Greek philosophers and theologians via the
apocalyptic writings.
This desire for harmonization became a reality as great

thinkers of the period postulated and prognosticated their views
on the spirit world. Their views were almost without fail,
extensions of Greek thought. The views contained massive
amounts of the elements that taught adherents about an ever-
present spirit-world of good and an opposing spirit world of evil
that was perpetually teeming with active demons and devils. Not
limiting the concept to a spirit world that was completely
orchestrated by and in submission to God. The Greek view, which
is essentially a Persian view, was one that has the cosmic

characters representing good and evil, embroiled in a cosmic

battle. The ultimate intent of the evil being or beings is to win
individuals to their side as if all of humanity are pawns in a
futuristic battle.
Although this is a simplistic description of the broad
philosophical views of the first century people, it is consistent with
the history. The history shows the transition from concepts of the
reality of evil that is the result of the evil inclination in man, to a
view that professes the existence of beings of evil with a will of
their own. The former view recognized evil took place without the
existence of an ultra evil, fallen spiritual being. Hellenism
designed and applied an external source to an internal problem.
Much the same way the Jews in Persia applied a concept of an
opposing source as the reason for their exile instead of believing it
was Yahweh causing their exile in response to their repeated sin
choices. A harmonizing of two contrasting philosophies became an
infection for the people who had previously experienced the true
faith of Israel. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
speaks clearly about such a pestilent harmonizing. Take special
note below of the highlighted portions in the following quote.
The opposition to Hellenism and the

apprehension of it naturally tended to draw
together those who shared the feeling. On the
one side was the scribist legal party, who
developed into the Pharisaic sect; on the other
were the mystics, who felt the personal power
of Deity. These afterward became first the
Chasidim, then later the Essenes. These latter
gradually retired from active participation in
national life. As is natural with mystics their
feelings led them to see visions and to dream
dreams. Others more intellectual, while they
welcomed the enlightenment of the Greeks,
170
retained their faith in the one God. To them it

seemed obvious that as their God was the true
God, all real enlightenment must have
proceeded from Him alone. In such thinkers as
Plato and Aristotle they saw many things in
harmony with the Mosaic law. They were sure
that there must have been links which united
these thinkers to the current of Divine
revelation, and were led to imagine of what sort
these links necessarily were. The names of
poets such as Orpheus and Linus, who survived
only in their names, suggested the source of
these links - these resemblances. Hence, the
wholesale forgeries, mainly by Jews, of Greek
poems. On the other hand, there was the desire
to harmonize Moses and his law with the
philosophical ideas of the time. Philo the
Alexandrian, the most conspicuous example of
this effort, could not have been an isolated
phenomenon; he must have had many
precursors. This latter movement, although
most evident in Egypt, and probably in Asia
Minor, had a considerable influence in Judea
also31
As indicated by the ISBE, the harmonizing of opposing views

that proved to be so insidious to the Jews was that of a Hellenistic
worldview combined with a Hebraic worldview. If we believe the
Scriptures, clearly these two views are not to be joined. As with all
apostasy, it was the intention of man to reconcile seemingly
31
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia; excerpt from the article
“Apocalyptic Literature”

irreconcilable views. The only way man could reconcile the two
views was to fabricate a spiritual system of good and evil, of Satan,
and of demonology. The Hellenized form of Christianity was
replete with non-definable feelings and emotions as well as
concepts that were otherwise unexplainable. Unexplainable that is
had they not fabricated and fused the Hellenized worldview to the
spiritual concepts of a Hebraic worldview. This adaptation
provided some level of comfort in a world where so much was
unexplainable. It was kind of like telling a child that a baby is
brought by a stork and they then are comforted and no longer need
to search for an explanation to their question of “where do babies
come from.”
The world became this way for man because of the confusion
that grew in the minds and hearts of many who were closely
associated with an ancient pagan, religious society. Instead of
denouncing the concepts that were not Biblical, many accepted
them and they were continuously foisted upon the masses. The
ideas then became acceptable and grew to be thought of as true.
Although sad, it is really not surprising how the concept of “satan,”
“Heaven,” and “Hell” became so accepted through the course of
time. Like any migratory philosophy or idea, it becomes apparent
that it was a slow paradigm shift effected through compromise and
misguided application of ethereal spiritual concepts. I don’t intend
to debate the matter of homosexuality here however, as an
example of the subtle shift in a culture’s philosophy that takes
place when the culture is readily exposed to a “new” philosophy on
a matter, we will consider the following.
Homosexuality Was Unacceptable For Most Until Our

Minds Were Changed
The shift in the philosophy of “Satan” is not unlike the present day
arrival at the acceptance of the idea that homosexuality is ‘okay’,
for lack of a better term. It was not so long ago that the majority of
society believed practicing homosexuality was wrong and
absolutely unbiblical. Many of us know who Ellen DeGeneres is. In
172
1997, Ellen, in the television sitcom titled after her name, came out
of the closet. On her show and in real life she admitted to being a
lesbian. Shortly after the “outing” of Ellen, the Ellen show ratings
began to decline. Some would say it was due to her overt use of the
gay theme in the sitcom. Whether or not this is the case, the facts
are, after a very successful run the show soon went off the air. This
was due almost exclusively to her public admission of her sexual
orientation.
At that time, the appearance of homosexual people in
television and movies was not all that common and acceptance for
homosexuality in society seemed low. Over the years though, a few
avante-guard television execs decided to throw a gay person in
here and there to add a little controversy or spice to their program
line-up. Who would have thought it; almost ten years after the
culturally unacceptable entry of homosexuality to TV and Movies,
the topic is steadily injected into every sitcom on TV. Many shows
have a homosexual as a lead or the lead character and many shows
display the homosexual idea as if it had always been an acceptable
part of the culture. It was not too long ago however, that Biblical
morals were touted as reason to reject this lifestyle. If you consider
even a couple of benchmarks in the history of homosexuality in TV
shows and movies, you might want to ask the question; “Was it
you who changed your mind on the issue or was your mind
changed for you?”
The first primetime television program to show two men in
bed together was the program thirty something in 1989. This
resulted in sponsor boycotts. Beyond that, we saw the first
homosexual kiss on Television in 1993 on a PBS show called Tales
of the City. The display of homosexual love raised the ire of so
many uncompromising folk, that it resulted in a Congressional
investigation into U.S. public TV. What was not acceptable in the
past has become acceptable because of constant exposure to it
from one direction or another. Admittedly, the predominant
conduit for exposure has been the television, but there are
numerous other sources that play into the cultural acceptance of a
lifestyle that was generally unacceptable throughout much of

common culture. What has become very prolific and culturally

approved can be argued to be unapproved of by God. This begs to
question who decides on morality, is it God or is it the cultural
masses? And how is it possible for people to combat assimilation
when assimilation is so strong, so persistent, and so persuasive?
It may be that the impact Apocalyptic literature of the first

and second century had on the shifting concept of “satan” is little
different than how media today influences collective
consciousness. Indeed the media has been instrumental in seeing a
massive philosophical shift in opinions about homosexuality. It is
a very common understanding that the Apocalyptics were integral
in the development of many concepts and doctrines that are
claimed to have their origin in Christianity. Quoting from the
conclusion of the ISBE article on the Apocalyptic Literature, we
hear this;
There are many points in which theology of the

Apocalyptic prepared the way for that of
Christianity. These, however, are more naturally
taken up under their special headings.
Angelology is much more developed in certain
apocalyptic writings than it is in Christianity, …
32
If I were to reframe and elaborate on what is being said by

the ISBE and others about the impact of the Apocalyptic writings I
would say this;
The Apocalyptic writings and other of the Pseudepigraphic
writings that are given the name of a notable person are not
authentic. They were writings composed after the exilic period of
the Hebrew people and into the early parts of the second century
32
ISBE excerpt from “Apocalyptic Literature”
174
A.D. The writers were typically Hellenized Jews who had adopted
and put into practice many of the ways of pagan worship.
Becoming the Gnostics in their views and religion. These practices
included but are not limited to some of the rites and patterns of
pagan worship, and some of the mystic beliefs in a “supernatural”
spirit world.
They Were “Gods” But Not The God
Not generally claiming any of the gods of the pagans were equal to
the One God, people began to pay homage to them. By believing in
some of these gods, the group that claimed to serve Yahweh was
now including more than one God in an otherwise monotheistic
faith. The gods that were believed to exist according to the
Hellenized philosophy were supposedly unseen spirits that
affected the environment and persons at certain times in various
ways.
A dualistic philosophy seemed to provide an explanation for
things such as the afterlife and the place the dead go to, whether it
be Heaven, or it be Hell. This same philosophy identified the entity
responsible for evil. The documents written by the Hellenized
theologians of the inter-testamental period began to be reflected in
the skewed beliefs of those involved in the culture. The views that
flourished and ultimately affected multitudes of learners began to
become cemented in early Christian theology. Many who would
otherwise not know how or where to acquire seemingly sound
theology and answers to intangibles, accepted the spoon-fed
concepts that were published, practiced, and preached by the self-
proclaimed teachers of the truth. Because of a broad need for
explanations, coupled with a belief system that bore all the
markings of syncretism and assimilation with the pagan nations,
the Apocalyptic literature was formed. The jump had been
successfully made, almost as if a mastermind sage of the time had

secretly planned a strategy to move the masses from belief in One

God to the confused dual-God philosophy.
It was as if someone decided that indoctrinating certain
people groups with pagan religious beliefs and ideas would be best
accomplished through expressing these beliefs in every day life.
Whether intentional or not, the oral transmission of folk tales and
ancient myths that seemed to embody elements of Biblical stories
proved efficacious towards altering the fiber of the societal beliefs.
The transmission took a stronger form when literate and
intelligent men decided to write down these concepts and teach
and make them available to all who would hear them. Unbiblical
theories and concepts were imbued with authority as they were
given life by being put to the written page. The dynamic doctrines
were then propagated by intellects who were more philosophers
than they were theologians but above all, were very convincing.
The uneducated populous no longer maintained strict adherence
to the faith of their fathers and they accepted the ideology of the
influential leaders in their mingled community. Once popularized,
the ideas became cemented in the development of the religions
that would be offshoots of the Biblical faith. A faith that did not
include a literal Satan. Now, after unyielding influence from Greek
theologians, belief in a supernatural evil spirit became a common
understanding by the varying classes of the first century. A
sufficiently Hellenized culture that accepted without question
there was an evil being working to affect the world and to steal
righteous ones from the Kingdom of God. The unaware populous
thought the evil one worked his schemes so they could be enlisted
forever in the kingdom of Satan. It was even difficult for first
century citizens of the Roman Empire to dissect the doctrines that
they were being taught to see if they were from Yahweh or from
man. Confusion and distortion of Biblical doctrine flourished in
that period making the cesspool of thought about demons and
Satan far too murky to drink fresh water from.
The truth that Satan was a construct of man has become so

mired in church doctrine and theological treatise that it is almost
176
impossible to unearth. Almost impossible… Knowing the origin of

an idea however, is undoubtedly a sure fire way to begin
extricating oneself from this centuries old lie. The lie that claims
Satan is real.

178
CH AP TE R 6
Can Satan Come from A Book
That’s Not Scripture?
In our quest to establish if there exists a real “Satan” or not we

may need to pursue the answer to yet another question. Most, if
not all of the typical Christian belief in “Satan” comes because of
the words that are contained within the pages of the “New
Testament.” Although scandalously misunderstood, few will argue
that the New Testament is the primary focus when developing the
Christian doctrine of Satan. Therefore, the question that must be
asked and then answered is;
“Is the New Testament Scripture?”
I have referred to the “New Testament” as the “Apostolic

Testimony” on numerous occasions. The reason I avoid the phrase
“New Testament” is because calling the Apostolic Testimony
“New,” puts it in the position of replacing something that was
“Old.” The terms “Old” and “New” were attached to the respective
collections of writings by men not by God. The Messiah didn’t find
that the Hebrew Scriptures were worthy to be called the “Old”
testament and the Apostolic writings were to be called “New.” The
Gospels and Apostolic Writings did not replace a more ancient
volume and were not to be named the “New Testament.” They
were not written with the intent that those letters would replace
the antiquated Hebrew Scriptures as is implied by the title “New
Testament.”
CHAPTER 6 – Can Satan Come from A Book That’s Not Scripture? 179
Although many since Marcion have made an effort to

eradicate the Hebrew Scriptures and implement the “New
Testament” as the Christian Scriptures, it is important that we
seriously consider just what the Apostolic writings were intended
to be used for. One thing is certain according to the apostles, their
writings were never intended to replace what they had been taught
was Scripture and what you and I have been taught is the “Old
Testament.” Remember Yeshua said not one tiniest stroke of the
“Law” shall pass away until Heaven and earth pass away. He was
referring to the “Old Testament.” So hearing Yeshua’s words and
seeing that Scripture teaches about the use of the “Old Testament,”
in the future, the Old Testament must be a very usable and viable
document to live by. And we should not make the mistake of
thinking the New Testament has the authority to outline a doctrine
of Satan.
If anyone thinks they can find support for the authority of the
New Testament by the writers of the Apostolic testimony, then he
or she has once again failed to recognize the context of the
passages. Some will be quick to jump to a passage in the Book of
Hebrews that says the Old has disappeared and the New is now
here. I assure you though, the letter to the Hebrews is not about
the dismissal of an archaic set of writings that are replaced by a
contemporary anthology. That document is about something other
than the authority of the “New Testament” over the “Old.”
Understanding the Sacrificial system at the time Hebrews was
penned sheds light on the message of that book. The passage is
about the Christ being a perfect High Priest as opposed to what the
system of the day had to offer. A system where the High Priest was
only an appointment by Rome. Here is the passage, which will be
thoroughly explored in Volume 4;
Hebrews 8:13 LITV

In the saying, New, He has made the first old. And the thing being
made old and growing aged is near disappearing.
180
I encourage you to investigate further. If you take the time to

understand the context of the book of Hebrews, you will see it
discusses the supremacy of Yeshua’s ministry over the ministry of
the flawed human priests who were operating a corrupt Temple
service. A service that was soon going to disappear as was
mentioned by the writer of Hebrews. This statement was proven
upon the destruction of the Temple approximately two years after
the writer penned his or her words about an old system
disappearing. The Old Testament cannot be said to have
disappeared only to be replaced by the New, otherwise Yeshua is a
liar because He stated the Old Testament would not pass away
until Heaven and earth pass away.
Matthew 5:17-18
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I did not come to destroy the Torah, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, not
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all
be fulfilled.
Should The Hebrew Scriptures Be Called Old?
The Hebrew Scriptures are not to be seen as “Old” in contrast to

the Gospels and Letters of what is called the “New Testament.” To
say something is Old carries with it an undertone that it is less
useful, not as important, and less worth consulting than that which
is called New. There are many prophetic references to the use of
the Hebrew Scriptures in the future age, called the Kingdom of
God. Statements from the Hebrew Scriptures such as, “the Torah
shall go forth from Zion”…. and “your word Oh Yahweh is settled
in Heaven forever,” as written in Psalms 119:89, are testimonies of
the fact that the Old Testament cannot pass away. The later
chapters of the Book of Ezekiel explain how things will be
operating for the future reign with Messiah in the rebuilt Temple.
This mention by Ezekiel shows the Torah, which is the major

component of the Old Testament, will be a major component of
the New Kingdom.
Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they
may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the
pattern. 11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew
them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings
out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof,
and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the
laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the
whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.
Ezekiel 43:10-11 KJV
Here in Ezekiel, we are being told if the whole house of Israel

will be ashamed of how they transgressed against God, then He
will show them how to keep His Law. The intimation here is
strong, in that when the New Kingdom is being established,
Yahweh’s people will keep all the statutes, commands, and laws
taught in the “Old Testament.” The Hebrew Scriptures will not be
seen as “Old” and replaced by the “New Testament” at that time.
In short, the designations of “Old” for the Hebrew Scriptures
and “New” for the Gospels and Letters has caused us to
misappropriate the importance of both of these ancient document
collections. The “Old Testament” is lessened in importance by the
general populace, which seems to be typically those of a Christian
mindset. And in response to the diminished Old Testament, the
“New Testament” is magnified in its importance by the same
Christian-mindset group. History reveals the transition the
Apostolic letters made from being important mail to being given
the high honour of being called Scripture in the second century.
When, after the middle of the 2nd century, a

definite collection began to be made of the
Christian writings, these were named “the New
Testament,” and were placed as of equal
182
authority alongside the “Old.” The name Novum

Testamentum (also Instrumentum) occurs first
in Tertullian (190-220 ad), and soon came into
general use. The idea of a Christian Bible may
be then said to be complete.33
A fair way to assess just what the “books” are to believers in

Messiah and to assess the importance of both the “Old “and the
“New,” is to see what is said of the “books” in each of them
respectively. We should try to see what is said about the “New
Testament” in the “Old Testament” and we should see what is said
of the “Old Testament” in the “New Testament.” It will also be
telling to see what each document states about itself within its own
pages. In other words, what does the Old Testament call itself and
what does the “New Testament” call itself? Ultimately, if we’re
being honest, we will not allow ourselves to call a group of letters
“Scripture,” if there is no evidence that the Messiah or the Apostles
called these documents “Scripture.” Why should we ascribe a title
and position to a group of documents that was not given that
group of documents by those who were the first readers of those
writings?
What About The Word “Scripture”?
It might be helpful to determine what is meant by the word

“Scripture” as it pertains to the Book that contains the Torah, the
Psalms, the Prophets, and the Apostolic Letters. The word
“scripture” itself, can be understood to mean something as simple
as any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group.
According to Webster’s Dictionary the word “scripture” is from the
Latin word scribo, which means to write. The simple form of the
word by definition means;
“In its primary sense, a writing; any thing written.”
33
From ISBE article titled The Bible
Webster goes on to define the word in the manner most who hear
it today would apply it.
-SCRIPTURE-
“Appropriately, and by way of distinction, the
books of the Old and New Testament; the Bible.
The word is used either in the singular or plural
number, to denote the sacred writings or divine
oracles, called sacred or holy, as proceeding
from God and containing sacred doctrines and
precepts.”
Although the word can mean, “any writing that is regarded

sacred by a religious group,” that is not the meaning of the word
when used in the Bible. In the WordWeb dictionary, we are given a
list of synonyms that clarify the meaning of the word for a major
sector of North Americans. The list is thus:
Bible, Book, Christian Bible, Good Book, Holy Scripture,

Holy Writ, Sacred Scripture, Word, and Word of God.
One can hardly miss that the word “scripture” is invariably

used to refer to those writings alleged to be Holy and intended by
God to be used as a guidebook to the truth. When the writings of
the Apostles are referred to as “Scripture,” the reference then is
not intended to say they are simply something written, rather that
they are considered to be sacred and Holy by those who hold them
in a venerated position and that they were intended by Yahweh to
be equal to the Hebrew Scriptures. These Hebrew Scriptures are
the reference in every case of the use of the English word
“scripture” found in the New Testament. The New Testament calls
the Old Testament Scripture. Therefore, with a proper
understanding of the word “scripture” we can readily conclude
that the Old Testament is indeed Scripture and the New Testament
is not.
184
Scripture For Believers In The First Century Was The Old

Testament. So What Should We Call Scripture?
Foremost though, let’s consider the use of the “Old Testament” by

the first century believer. That is, by one who believes in the Word
of God and the promised Messiah. There is little argument that the
letters of Paul and the Gospels, as well as the pastoral letters in the
New Testament, were not written prior to the 50’s CE. With the
exception possibly of Mark. Of course these dates are put forth by
the group that believes the New Testament writings were in fact
written by the Disciples of Christ who ministered in the first
century.
This puts the writing of a body of literature that is claimed to
be a guide to Faith in “God” well into the first century, which
places it after the resurrection of the Messiah. These writings at
best would have been circulating at the earliest in the later half of
the first century. Although many involved in Christianity often
think the first century believers were familiar with the Gospels and
Letters of Paul, as well as the Pastoral Epistles, it is probable that
the majority of first century believers did not have access to these
letters at all. In fact, many scholars have seen the likelihood of
these books being pseudonymous in nature. It is asserted by many
that the gospels were not written by the men they are titled after.
The understanding is that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were
probably not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but
would have been written by men who had become familiar to
either the men named on the title page of each of book, or familiar
to their stories. Either way one looks at it, the writings of the “New
Testament” are not writings that would have been used by the first
century believers to establish the patterns of their faith and the
practice of their worship. If you lived in the first century and were
taught about worship of Yahweh and believing in the Messiah as a
means to gain your inheritance in the Kingdom of God, you would
not have looked to the writings of apostles to define the inner
workings of your faith walk. Although one might receive

clarification on certain issues and matters of concern from the
writings of the apostles, it is fact that no first century believer had
access to the apostolic writings as their Christian scriptures. As
well, you would only have the “Hebrew Scriptures” as a text to give
you instruction. The first century believers in Messiah were
inherently and practically more “Jewish” than Christian.
Please keep in mind as we progress in our study that the
word “Torah” means instruction. And when it is used in context in
the Scriptures and New Testament, it is referring to Yahweh’s
teaching and instruction. The Apostolic testimony shows us the
new believers were taught to keep the teaching and instruction of
Yahweh. It is believed by many the writings of the New Testament
have done away with much of the instruction contained in the Old.
This is because of the misunderstanding of the word “Law,” which
means “Torah.” A propensity for Christianity to agree with an
early Greco-Roman view of the word of God that suggests the New
Testament is the Christian Bible, led many to reject the teaching
and instruction of the God of the Bible. It is incorrect to claim the
new believers in the first century were taught to reject the
instruction and commands found in the “Old Testament.” With
this fact in mind, we should be able to conclude that a first century
believer would have learned about a Satan from the Old
Testament. A believer from that period would not have studied a
New Testament to try to develop a Satan doctrine. Perhaps we
shouldn’t either.
New Believers Were Taught About God From The Old

Testament
In an effort to show that the Old Testament was not replaced or

diminished by the New Testament, I would like to look at a
concept found in Acts chapter 15. This is vital to our study because
the doctrine of Satan that Christianity propagates is often said to
be taught in the New Testament. The force of the Christian
186
teaching lies squarely in the belief that new believers were

instructed about faith in God with New Testament teachings.
Therefore Christians today should be taught from the New
Testament. If we can see that there is no Satan doctrine in the Old
Testament and that the new believers were not taught from the
New rather they were taught from the Old Testament, then we can
recognize a very important matter. There was no teaching about a
literal Satan in the writings called the New Testament, therefore
Christians today ought not to build their doctrine of Satan or any
doctrine from the New Testament.
As an example of believers being taught to follow what is
contained in the “Old Testament,” we can look into the book of
Acts. We are told in the book of Acts that the Gentile believers are
to stop practicing such pagan things as eating food sacrificed to
idols, eating things strangled, eating blood, and engaging in pagan
ritualistic orgies with other heathens and the temple harlots. As
they are accepted into the community of those exhibiting a desire
to serve Yahweh, they will be taught from the books of Moses,
meaning the Torah. Stopping their unbiblical pagan practices will
result in an acceptance into the local assembly hall or group of
learners each Sabbath in the synagogue. The article “for” at the
beginning of the following verse is a word that connects it to the
previous statements that are outlining necessary behaviours for
the Gentiles. The statement indicates they can learn Torah, or
“Moses,” every Sabbath in the synagogue if they are careful to not
offend Jewish Holy behaviour by committing the aforementioned
prohibited acts. To put a fine point on this; if the new converts can
be civil and not get kicked out of the synagogue then things will
work out. They will get teaching from the Old Testament on how to
live out their faith in God every Saturday when they go to Sabbath
gatherings.
For the teachings of Moses are read every Sabbath in the synagogue,
just as they have been for years
Acts 15:21
The writer of that passage has told the hearers that the
Gentiles would do well to adhere to the injunctions as set down by
James, John, and the Jerusalem council, called the pillars of the
faith in Jerusalem. These injunctions would prevent the new
believers from being rejected by the “Jew” as far as their
synagogue involvement went. They then would be able to be
taught from the Torah each week. Clearly in the above passage we
see the new converts are not taught about Jesus or about demonic
warfare; they are taught from the Old Testament.
Many will contend that the “Gentiles” who joined the faith of
Israel had a special set of rules to follow and generally were not
asked to keep the rules that were kept by all the “Jewish” believers
in Messiah. This idea reeks of a sentiment that the Jews are better
than the Gentiles in certain ways, and that Yahweh is a respecter of
persons having more than one set of rules for the many groups
who desire to follow Him. There are more and more Christians
who are realizing that God does not change and that the case in
this letter is not one of imposing only four simple injunctions on
those coming into the faith of Israel; rather it is one of a starting
point for integration. Even in the Alexandrian period it is noted by
Philo that there was an effort to interpret the Laws of Moses so the
Gentiles could understand them. We find mention of this by
Burton Mack in a chapter on Clashing Cultures from his book,
Who Wrote the New Testament? Mack says;
We now know the non-Jews found diaspora

synagogues to be a very attractive subcultural
association, and that gentiles did gather around
to study the Scriptures [Old Testament],
rehearse the epic, honour the one God,
celebrate the feasts and festivals, and learn to
keep the Jew’s laws with their high ethical
standard…
188
…That would have meant being circumcised,

keeping whatever form of kosher was in
practice, and perhaps paying a temple tax.34
We won’t go on about the responsibilities of the Gentiles who

were becoming part of the Israel of God, however, if the Apostles
James, John, and Paul all agreed that those coming into the
believing community were to be taught from the Old Testament
every Sabbath, then perhaps we ought to recognize the Apostles
were not teaching new believers from the yet unwritten New
Testament. If the New Testament was not used for instructing new
believers in the first century then why is it used for new believers
today? And why is it given the same authority and impetus as the
“Old Testament”? Why is a teaching on Satan extracted from the
New Testament if the New Testament is not Scripture? We must
ask the question;
“What is the New Testament and what is it good
for?”
Within the pages of the Old Testament, one will not find any
reference to a soon to be released body of literature that would
eventually act as a charter or creed for those following The
Messiah. For all the scholars who have recognized this, it is odd
that the New Testament has not been properly placed back into the
category it was intended to be in. It was intended to be personal
mail for the groups the writer sent it to. In an International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia article titled, The Bible, we are told
yet again that the entire Bible as we know it does not give any sign
that the New Testament should be called Scripture.
There is naturally no name in the New

Testament for the complete body of Scripture;
the only Scriptures then known being those of
the Old Testament.
34
ibid page 38
Consider the Gospels. We have a collection of four major

books in what is known as the New Testament. But do we even
understand where the term “New Testament” came from? Many
believe that the term “New Testament” is used because a brand
new covenant was formed when the Christ came and when the
apostles accepted Him. It is thought the Christian Church was
started at that time. This is all very nice and can be squeezed into a
neat little package whereby Christianity can wield its weapon of
control and claim that the “Church” has authority because when
the “New Testament,” was given, the “Old Testament,” meaning
Old covenant was abolished.
Many believe the New Testament provides authority to
Christianity to alter the Laws of God. This idea has been a long-
standing “church” concept and is fatally flawed because in
believing that, one must then admit that they are saying Yeshua, or
Jesus as many call Him, is a liar. When I speak of the
contemporary “church,” I refer to the organized religious
institution and not of the individual well-meaning people who
attend the institution, often believing without question that their
church is correctly disseminating the truth of the word of God.
Yeshua Himself declared He did not come to abolish the
Torah or the prophets but that He came to fulfill them. He went on
and stated that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Torah until
all is fulfilled and that the words of the Torah cannot pass unless
Heaven and Earth have passed away. According to the Messiah,
the “Old Testament” has not passed away and made way for a
completely new covenant.
Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the prophets: I am

not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach
them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-19
190
Yeshua was a Hebrew Messiah and came to bring clarity to

the covenants already given the people of God. Covenants that
involved keeping a few simple rules but had been so convoluted
and distorted by religious institutions that only God’s Messiah
could bring the people back into alignment with the intent of the
covenants.
The covenant that is represented by the death and
resurrection of the Messiah should not be called “New” so much as
it is, “Renewed.” This is so because Christ stated He did not come
to abolish the Law therefore we can conclude that the rules haven’t
changed, the payment criterion hasn’t changed, and the
beneficiaries and parties of the covenant haven’t change. Doing
away with the original covenant indicates that the covenant was
flawed and therefore that Yahweh is flawed. It is not faulty, but
because we broke it, the Kind King has decided to find a way to
restore it. The appearance of the Messiah then, brings a renewed
aspect to an eternal covenant.
According To Jeremiah The New Covenant Is Really

Quite Old
It is important to understand that the term “New Covenant” or

“New Testament” as is found between the two major sections of
most North American Bibles, comes from an “Old Testament”
prophecy. In the book of Jeremiah, the prophet is exhorting the
covenant breakers of Israel. The prophecy goes, that after Israel
has endured being scattered because of their covenant breaking
Yahweh promises to make a “renewed covenant” with the house of
Israel and the house of Judah.
Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a
new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of
Judah:
This renewed covenant may be viewed as if a cheating wife is taken

back by a forgiving husband and the two truly love each other.
Then there is a renewal of the marriage covenant they had long
ago committed to. The old vows from the covenant do not
disappear, there is just a renewed passion and fervency to uphold
or fulfill the covenant because of the amazing price of the act of
forgiveness put forward by the husband in the marriage.
The use of the Hebrew word “brit,” for covenant and
“chadashah,” for new, is speaking of something that is being
renewed. The use of the words “New Covenant,” brit chadashah,
comes straight from the book of Jeremiah. Moreover, when one
examines the concept and context of this term they will find it does
not mean what is meant by the separating page between the “Old”
and “New” Testaments. It does not mean an improved body of
scripture shows up and replaces a previous body of scripture.
Did The Authors Intend For Their Letters To Be

Scripture?
Looking back into history, we see where the “New Testament” first
began to be given the attributes of an entirely new and separate
covenant. In the first century and early second century there were
literally hundreds of letters and Gospels circulating around Rome,
Asia, Africa, and Palestine. These letters were a broad collection of
inspirational and instructional writings, intended to give direction
to the faith system of the day, not to devise a new system. Rome
was in charge and Christianity came to be accepted as a legal
religion by the Romans under Domitian. Legal, because of its
compliance with Roman laws and the acceptable parameters for a
pagan religion.
Amidst that environment was the body of believers that
practiced faith in God the same way Yeshua and the Apostles
practiced the faith. Letters from theologians were sent all over the
Roman Empire and none of them was considered Scripture, this
192
includes the various letters that comprise the present-day New

Testament. In many instances however, those letters were thought
to be inspired due to the very encouraging exhortations contained
in many of them. It would be great to have original copies of these
letters. However, there are no originals in existence today. In fact,
if you could show up with one of the letters that were circulating in
the first century, the theological and archaeological fields would be
ecstatic. The fact is that there are no originals anywhere, yet
discovered. Not one original copy of any of the apostolic letters has
been unearthed. We are often told those letters were composed in
the first century but there is no physical document to prove that.
There are no original versions of early first century apostolic
writings found anywhere.
Another question I would like to ask is this. Did the first
century followers of Messiah have familiarity with the term “New
Testament” the way most of us understand it today? The answer is
clearly No! The first century followers of Yeshua did not have any
familiarity with the term “New Testament” nor did they have a
compilation of letters they saw as a body of holy literature besides
the Old Testament. The first century familiarity with the term
“New Testament” would have been expressly connected to the
prophet Jeremiah and understood as an eventual restoring of a
covenant that had been broken by the people of Israel. If heard by
a first century believer, the term would have been “Renewed
Covenant” not “New Testament.” The writings of the Apostles did
not receive the title “New Testament” until hundreds of years after
Christ had risen from the dead.
Things Changed When First Century Believers Were Run

Out Of Jerusalem
After the destruction of the Temple and the razing of Jerusalem by

the Roman army in 70 AD, the Hellenized theologians basically
went wild. A steady flow of Greek thinking into the religion of the
Messiah occurred and as the Hebrew leaders of the faith continued

to be scattered or to die off, the Greek theologians picked up the
ball and began to change the ball into a creation of their own.
Their process of creation involved arguing whose letters were more
inspired and which “apostle” should be listened to. As the first
century ended and the second century saw the furthering of more
Greek concepts, which began to be attached to the faith of Yeshua,
many, many scholars and theologians vied for power and
influence. One of the more notable scholars was a man called
Marcion.
According to Donald Harmon Akenson in his monumental
work called Surpassing Wonder, The Invention of the Bible and
the Talmuds, Marcion had a great influence on what would
become the canon. Canon means the standard and Marcion’s
canon strongly influenced the development of the Christian New
Testament. In The Essence of the Gnostics, we are told Marcion
was a contemporary of the early Christians and lived
approximately 85 AD to 160 AD. Marcion was labeled as a heretic
and was excommunicated from the church in 144 AD. Swearing to
divide the Church in Rome with a division that would last forever,
Marcion established his own church. In the Marcionite faith,
“Jesus” is not God but is some spirit form or perhaps an angel
appearing as the Messiah. Marcionism held to a low view on
marriage, finding it unnecessary and not to be esteemed. Marcion
taught that the God of the “Old Testament” was a bad God and
really is not worthy of being the progenitor of Christ. Marcion’s
complete rejection of the Old Testament is a “scandal” that had the
ability to lead the faithful astray and led Marcion to cast an
allegorical interpretation on practically everything found in the
Hebrew Scriptures. As mentioned above, it was in this era that the
delineations “Old” and “New” came to be used as a means to
identify the Hebrew Scriptures from the Gospels and Apostolic
letters. I will share the insight of the ISBE again as it discusses the
evolution of these terms. There we see the New Testament was not
so named until the end of the second century. It was not until that
194
time the so called letters and writings of the Apostles were given
equal authority to the Hebrew Scriptures.
Old Testament and New Testament
Special interest attaches to the names “Old”

and “New Testament,” now and since the close
of the 2nd century in common use to distinguish
the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures.
Applied to the Scriptures, therefore, “Old”
and “New Testament” mean, strictly, “Old” and
“New Covenant,” though the older usage is now
too firmly fixed to be altered.
When, after the middle of the 2nd century, a
definite collection began to be made of the
Christian writings, these were named “the New
Testament,” and were placed as of equal
authority alongside the “Old.” The name Novum
Testamentum (also Instrumentum) occurs first
in Tertullian (190-220 ad), and soon came into
general use. The idea of a Christian Bible may
be then said to be complete.35
Marcion’s rigid view of “Jesus” not being “God” and his belief
that the God of the “Old Testament” is bad, was the primary
reason for his excommunication from the Catholic Church.
Marcion seemed very much attached to a young Gnostic named
Cerdo and this was a significant factor that also played into
Marcion’s excommunication. Marcion would only baptize the
unmarried, eunuchs, virgins, and widows. Celibacy was seen as a
state of grace that was in accord with the Christ’s teachings. To be
35
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia article The Bible (emphasis added)
in agreement with Marcion was to believe that there was no longer

any value to be found in trying to understand the Hebrew
Scriptures as a guide to the faith of the Israel of God. The “New
Testament” had become the guide to the Christians, and Marcion
seemed to be the one to decide which of the letters and Gospels
would appear in his canon.
Athanasius Creates The Catholic New Testament
Some time after Marcion’s antics had faded and after years of
debate by religious leaders over which letters and books to affirm
as Scripture, we land in the office of Bishop Athanasius. Some find
it interesting that the choice of which letters to canonize was made
not by scrutinizing the content of each writing to see if agreed with
the Old Testament. Rather, we see that for most of the theologians
and councils who set out to establish a canon, the deciding factor
was based on who the author was and not so much on content.
That is to say, if enough memers of the council believed a writing
to be from Peter the apostle or Paul the apostle, then the council
would vote to enter that writing into the canon of New Testament
Scripture.
In about the year 367 AD, the Bishop of Babylon, Athanasius,
put together the “New Testament” books in the package we
maintain today. The difference in format between Athanasius’
“New Testament” and the present Christian volume according to
Burton L. Mack, is that James, Peter, John, and Jude are placed
before the Pauline letters. Mack speaks about the development of
the “New Testament” as a compilation that had authority for the
Catholic Church in his book Who Wrote the New Testament.
Eusebius must have made a list of the writings

under consideration for inclusion in the
Christian Bible, but he did not say which ones
196
he copied for Constantine, whether the Old

Testament was included in the copies, or which
books belonged to the set. The Festal Letter of
Athanasius, on the other hand, listed both the
writings Christians should consider as the Old
Testament, and those to be included in the New
Testament. Athanasius’ list of New Testament
writings is identical to that in the Christian
Bible, with the exception of a different location
for the “catholic” letters (James, Peter, John,
and Jude) which he placed right after acts and
before the Pauline epistles36
The main criteria for establishing which books were in and

which were out was to attempt to determine if a particular letter or
Gospel was authentic. That is to say, determining who the original
writer was. Once the writer was determined and the letter
approved, then it was included in the New Testament canon. The
question of authorship for most of the “New Testament” books is
continually being challenged by serious scholarship. It is not
possible at this juncture, to establish with certainty that the names
of the Books of the “New Testament” indicate the person or
persons who wrote them. When push comes to shove and a
theologian, that is a Christian theologian, has their position on the
authenticity of the authorship of the “New Testament” challenged
with convincing and irrefutable arguments, they usually begin to
make concessions. They inevitably concede that one cannot be
100% certain the book of Matthew was written by Matthew or that
the book of Acts was written by Luke and so on. The scholar who is
challenged often resigns himself to accept the very real possibility
of the pseudonymous authorship of the “New Testament.” At that,
36
pg 289 of “Who Wrote the New Testament, The Making of the Christian Myth” by
Burton L. Mack, Published 1995 by Harper Collins.
they often metaphorically throw up their arms and in a type of

grand hailing sign of distress declare; “I believe it in faith.”
So often, when a devout Christian Scholar comes across a
concept or theory that has merit but that they are not able to fit
into their belief system, they blindly turn to faith. That particular
believer will readily bring the term “faith” into the disagreement.
The claim that they will just take it on faith that the New
Testament is the word of God trumps all of their doubts and they
suggest it should trump yours and mine too. At that, they claim
they don’t have all the answers but they are confident in their
statement that they accept the New Testament as Scripture “in
faith.” If their acceptance of the New Testament is based on
something as esoteric as faith then aren’t these scholars simply
Gnostics? Is faith enough? Should we not be able to stand on fact
with something as important as the New Testament? If the God of
the Universe intended the Gospels and Apostolic letters to be equal
to the Hebrew Scriptures then surely He could have left us with
more evidence that the apostles were the authors of these texts.
Scholars who claim faith as their reason for accepting the validity
of the New Testament should be seen as guilty of professing an
esoteric knowledge. They are just like the Gnostics and like men
such as Marcion in the first and second centuries. Marcion was
self-appointed to establish a set of apostolic writings from
available “letters,” which would be received as the essential books
to the Christian movement. He said his compilation was the bible
for Christians and contained revelation about the good God while
the “Old Testament” was the book for the Jews and contained
information about the old, mean God.
I might add that the Marcion Christian movement proves to

be just another variety of Gnosticism, as do all the varying sects of
Christianity that sprung up in the first century and didn’t hold to
the Messiah’s philosophy of the Torah not being abolished.
Marcionism was a very prolific movement and churches were
established by Marcion in Rome, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Arabia,
and parts of Persia and Anatolia. Marcion also claimed that Jesus
198
was a phantom and that there was no resurrection. His heavy

reliance on astrology was typical of most Gnostics, as the Persian
influence had carried through the Alexandrian period into the
Common Era and right on into the second century. In about 140
CE, Marcion produced his Bible for the “Christians.” A production
that would ring loudly throughout the ages as it has proven to
affect the compilation of “New Testament” books we use today.
What Some Called The New Testament, Justin Martyr

Called Encouraging Letters
In Surpassing Wonder, Akenson speaks of Justin the Martyr, also

known as Justin of Caesarea, from 150 CE. We are told that Justin,
an influential second century theologian, did not refer to the
letters from the apostles or the gospels as Scripture. One would
think that the middle of the second century would have been late
enough for the “New Testament” to be established as Scripture if
anyone with appropriate God ordained authority was around to do
so. However, these letters were not yet considered Scripture and
there has never been anyone after the period of Messiah who has
been imbued with the Spiritual authority required to classify the
Apostolic writings as Scripture. No one has the divine authority to
give these letters a status equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Akenson tells of Justin’s familiarity with the Gospels and
Revelation that is referred to in Justin’s writings. Justin speaks of
a congregational practice of reading from some of the memoirs of
the apostles as well as from the prophets.
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in

cities or in the country gather together to one
place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the
writings of the prophets are read, as long as
time permits; then, when the reader has ceased,
the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to

the imitation of these good things.37
He indicates in his writings a familiarity with the Pauline letters.

Justin has not called any of the Gospels, any of the Letters, or the
book of Revelation, “Scripture” but he does indicate the value of
reading from them. Akenson describes Justin’s discussion as more
“reportorial than normative in nature.” We can find that Justin
called these writings the “memoirs of the apostles” in an
apologetic work he composed about the year 150 AD. According to
what can be learned from Justin, it is clear there was no belief the
apostolic writings were equal to Scripture. Akenson states the
following of Justin’s position;
Justin was not describing what should be read in

a Christian congregation, but rather what was
actually done in his own locale.
Akenson goes on to say this about Justin’s reflections on Marcion;
That Justin reflected on such matters may well

have been the result of the activities of an
influential preacher active in Western Asia
Minor, the “heretic,” Marcion, who was the first
Christian of record to focus his thoughts
directly upon the question of what should - and
what should not- be read as being authoritative.
Marcion, being a heretic, has frequently been
marginalized in discussions of the canon, but he
should not be. Not only was he the first
canonical thinker of whom we have any
37
Justin Martyr in ANTE-NICENE FATHERS VOLUME 1 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS,
JUSTIN MARTYR, IRENAEUS - Chapter LXVII.—Weekly worship of the Christians
200
knowledge, but he probably came much closer

to winning than later church authorities like to
admit. 38
Akenson continues…
…Marcion’s thought was that he entirely

rejected the idea that Christianity should have
anything to do with the religion found in the
Hebrew Scriptures. Christianity, he believed,
was a totally new religion. Marcion seems to be
acquainted with the Four Gospels, but, given
that each of them includes numerous passages
that resonate with the content of the “Old
Testament,” he found them unsatisfactory. 39
We are told by Akenson that Marcion then proposed a radical

new canon, which involved elimination of the Hebrew Scriptures
and rewriting the story of Jesus so it didn’t smack of Jewishness
or, as Akenson calls it, “Judahist overtones.” Marcion’s Gospel has
not survived, but it is referred to in other writings from that
period. This “heretical” gospel was based on a purged version of
Luke. This would be a version that was combed through to remove
any “Judahist overtones.” The other Gospels were completely
untrustworthy according to Marcion. Seeing Paul as the founder of
Christianity, yet not completely trusting Paul’s writings, Marcion
included nine of Paul’s letters to individual churches and the letter
to Philemon. Akenson concludes the following regarding the
content of Marcion’s Gospel;
38
Pg 218-219 of “Surpassing Wonder, The Invention of the Bible and Talmuds,” by
Donald Harman Akenson, Published by McGill-Queens University Press, 1998
39
ibid
Evidently Marcion’s canon consisted of his

sanitized version of Luke, and the bulk of the
Pauline epistles, cleansed of Hebrew overtones,
such as references to Abraham and his
descendants.40
Seeing Marcion’s drive to polarize the accepted Scriptures

from the Apostolic writings, leads us to understand how the term
“New Testament,” came to be used. Numerous theologians began
compiling and proposing their own idea for what letters should be
included in the “New” canon. Marcion had set off a flurry of
scholarly debates and work. Marcion prompted such great names
in the Christian faith as Taitian in Syria, around 170 CE, to
produce a harmony of the four Gospels. Not much later Irenaeus
noted that the founders of many Gnostic schools, such as
Valentinus were not apostles. Irenaeus argued the Gnostic heresies
and compared them with the truth he found in the four gospels.
Different than Marcion though, Irenaeus used the terms “New
Testament and Old Testament” as a means to reference the fact
that both the Jewish Scriptures and the Apostolic writings witness
to the same truth and the same faith. This then is the point where
the delineation found in the present day bible had its first
scholarly catapult. Launching a move to separate the writings with
the terms “New” and “Old.” This division of writings from different
periods developed into the Hellenized, Gnostic Christianity, which
many have accepted without critical examination as such, until
this very day. This is spoken of in “Who Wrote the New
Testament.”
He [Irenaeus] also used the terms old testament

and new testament to refer to the Jewish
Scriptures and the apostolic writings, making
40
ibid
202
the point that they both witness to the same

God, the same truth, and the same faith…41
Up until the time of Marcion, in the middle of the second

century, the letters of the apostles and the gospels of the apostles
were none other than that; letters. They were known to be letters
and memoirs but the passion of a heretic named Marcion, became
the catalyst that poised the early writings to be labeled as “New
Testament.” This move was one that for ages to come would cause
people of faith throughout the world to believe these writings were
equal in authority with the Hebrew Scriptures to establish
doctrine. It was the Hebrew Scriptures only that was the text used
by Yeshua and the Apostles. The writings that came to be called
the “New Testament” were not available in a distinct form until the
middle of the second century. A rudimentary understanding of the
development of the “New Testament” as a unified body of
literature has helped many to see that this book is not to be
considered Scripture in the same sense that the Hebrew Scriptures
are considered Scripture.
Below is a brief summary of the development of the “New
Testament.” It is also helpful to see the period of development of
the “Old Testament.” The fact that there was an “Old Testament”
in the first century, allows us to see the thinking that brought the
fabrication of a “New Testament.” If you have any doubt that there
was a volume of writings already known as Scripture in the first
century then please think about the following. The fact that a “New
Testament” was believed to be necessary by men such as Marcion
and Irenaeus, is strong enough testimony to accept that there was
a fully compiled “Old Testament,” already being used and not
contested as “the Hebrew Scriptures” by even the worst heretics.
Sadly though, because of an inability to understand the Scriptures
from the proper Hebraic perspective and because of the desire the
Greek theologians had to design a brand of faith that would look
attractive to those interested in religion, the compilers of the “New
41
ibid pg 287
Testament” embarked on a project to provide a thoroughly distinct

and “Christian” testament. Christianity and the New Testament
emerged at the time it did by drawing on its Jewish roots. Roots
that were joined with many Greek ideas and enhanced by an
infatuation with Roman power and the thoughts it contained. This
is crucial to understand how a book to guide the Catholic masses
could be so impacting on the world today. Thanks to the plans of
man, the “New Testament” was born. Take a look at a simple
timeline of the development of the “New Testament.”
Church History Documents:

Development of the New Testament Canon
1000-50 BC: The Old Testament (hereafter "OT") books

are written.
C. 200 BC: Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to

Greek, a translation called the "Septuagint" (abbreviation:
"LXX"). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.
AD 30-100: Christians use the LXX as their scriptures.

This upsets the Jews.
C. AD 100: So Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of

Jamniah and decide to include in their canon only 39
books, since only these can be found in Hebrew.
C. AD 51-125: The New Testament books are written, but

during this same period other early Christian writings are
204
produced--for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1

Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the
7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).
C. AD 140: Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches

that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the
OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion
eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he
is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul
and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deletes references to Jesus'
Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament"--the first to be
compiled--forces the mainstream Church to decide on a
core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul
C. AD 200: But the periphery of the canon is not yet

determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c.
AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4
gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not
included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and
Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter
AD 367: The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in

exactly the number and order in which we presently have
them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in
his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the
Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]
C. AD 400: Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and

Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate"). He knows that the
Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to
these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1
Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach
[or "Ecclesiasticus"], and Baruch--he calls "apocrypha,"
that is, "hidden books." But Pope Damasus wants all 46
traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the
Vulgate has 46.42
A couple of things to notice in this timeline is that the

validity and authority of these “extra” books has been a
contentious issue from early on in the history of the Bible. We are
told the “extra” books, which can be found in the Catholic Bible,
were placed into the Septuagint and then they were rejected by a
group of Rabbis in the Jamniah council. After that, the Hebrew
Bible remained unchanged at 39 books, and retained its pre-
Septuagint number of Books. Then, in the fourth century, when
Jerome realized there was a need for the common people to have a
Bible to read, he produced a translation that ended up containing
the inflated number of 46 books. This was called Jerome’s Latin
Vulgate. Although not his preference to include the extra books, he
chose to defer to the wishes of the reigning Pope of the day.
Probably a wise decision if Jerome was interested in keeping his
head or staying out of prison.
Based on the turbulent development of what is called the
“New Testament,” it becomes clear the acceptance of the “New
Testament” as “Scripture” and giving it the same authority as the
Hebrew Scriptures should be questioned. Jerome’s version was
based on the format provided by Bishop Athanasius in 367 CE,
42
The complete document can be viewed at the web address
http://www.bsmvt.org/canon.html
206
which was approved by a council of men who believed they had

authority to decide what is Scripture and what is not. Because a
group of fourth-century Greek theologians and politicians agreed
with a Bishop who was interested in pleasing the Roman Empire,
that does not mean their decisions are endorsed by the Messiah or
any of the first century apostles.
To believe that this compilation was put together by God
Himself is to accept the claim of the fourth-century apostates who
imbued themselves with ecclesiastical authority. I refer to them as
apostate because this group of Roman Catholic leaders did not
follow the faith of Yeshua or Paul. According to the Scriptures they
would indeed be seen as apostates because their man-made
version of Christianity was a long way off from the practices of
Paul and the early apostles.
Would Paul Have Taught About Satan From A Book That

Isn’t Scripture?
In the book of Acts, we are given an account of Paul being accused

falsely of being an apostate. There it is said of him that he is
teaching people to go against the Law of Moses. Very clearly, Paul
is falsely accused and he responds by fulfilling a Nazarite vow. A
ritual that included going through with proper temple Sacrifices
after a period of abstinence and shaving his head. Quite simply,
Paul was not an apostate because he kept the commands of the Old
Testament and he taught others to do so also. Albeit, he did not
teach observance of these commands in the same way his old
friends the Pharisees taught. Paul taught the Old Testament. So
would Paul have taught about a cosmic Satan? Not likely. That
said, according to the book of Acts, only the Old Testament is seen
as Scripture. Any doctrine, including a doctrine of Satan, cannot
come from anything that is not Scripture. If a doctrine of Satan
existed, then we would find it clearly in the Old Testament.
Never once did Paul or any of the Apostles refer to a New
Testament as the document of authority when teaching others
about the Faith of the Messiah. The Torah of Moses on the other
hand is understood to have been given to Moses by God, thus
making it the Torah of Yahweh. This is testified to in the Book of
Ezra. There we are told Yahweh; the God of Israel, gave the Law of
Moses to Moses. Keep in mind, although given by Yahweh the
Torah is often called the “Law of Moses.”
Ezra 7:6 KJV This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready
scribe in the law of Moses, which the LORD God of Israel had
given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the
hand of the LORD his God upon him.
I find it odd that just because a group of men in the fourth

century under a Bishop called Athanasius, made the final decision
on what was to be included in the “New Testament” canon for all
time; we then accept this decision as authoritatively inspired by
The Creator. What I see as odd is that this man Athanasius was not
following the Messiah because he did not practice faith as the
Messiah did and as Paul, James, John, and all the first apostles
did. Athanasius observed a corrupt Roman version of faith that
had come to be called Christianity. He didn’t keep the Scriptures
that the first apostles taught and lived. Furthermore, how is it that
Athanasius was one who accepted as Scripture the “extra” books
that were written by Hellenized Jews at best but Christians all over
the world refuse to accept them as Scripture?
Luther was another man who decided to cut and slash certain
“extra” books from what we know today as the Catholic Bible.
Christendom found it easy enough to follow the opinion of an
influential man in the fourth century and that man-following
practice did not change when we saw a breakaway sect of
Christendom following a man in the 16th century. Nothing against
the men as individuals but it does seem that they both believed
they were imbued with authority to dictate what is to be classified
as “Scripture.” Or at least their followers believed that of them.
Was There Ever Any Doubt That The Old Testament Is

Scripture?
208
Certainly the New Testament is up for inspection as to its validity

and its authority to be called Scripture. Questioning these things is
important. I find that it is also important to ask the same
questions of the “Old Testament.” When one does scrutinize the
Old Testament he or she will find it contains many statements
testifying to it being the Holy word of God. A look at the Torah, the
Psalms, and the Prophets reveals a significant pattern. In almost
every book in the Hebrew Scriptures we can find the phrase or a
similar phrase as; “The Word of the LORD.” This phrase is given
all throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and it is inextricably
connected to the utterances that come forth from the mouths of
the Prophets. I will only provide a few instances and if one is
inclined to take note as they read the Scriptures, they will see the
repeated use of this term in practically every book that intends to
show the hearer and reader the words contained in the text are in
fact the word of God. We see terms such as; the word of the Lord
came to so and so; the word of the Lord is perfect; thus sayeth the
Lord; and, the word of the Lord came unto me.
Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto
Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy
exceeding great reward.
Numbers 15:31 KJV Because he hath despised the word of the LORD,
and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off;
his iniquity shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 8:3 KJV And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to

hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither
did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth
not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of the LORD doth man live.
2 Samuel 22:31 KJV As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the
LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
2 Kings 7:1 KJV Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the LORD;
Thus saith the LORD, To morrow about this time shall a measure of
fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel,
in the gate of Samaria.
2 Chronicles 36:21 KJV To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth
of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as
she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.
Psalms 33:4 KJV For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works
are done in truth.
Isaiah 2:3 KJV And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let
us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of
Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths:
for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from
Jerusalem.
Isaiah 38:4 KJV Then came the word of the LORD to Isaiah, saying,
Jeremiah 1:4 KJV Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Ezekiel 1:3 KJV The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel
the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river
Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.
Ezekiel 37:15 KJV The word of the LORD came again unto me,
saying,
Daniel 9:2 KJV In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by
books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came
to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in
the desolations of Jerusalem.
Hosea 1:1 KJV The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea, the son
of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of
Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.
Joel 1:1 KJV The word of the LORD that came to Joel the son of
Pethuel.
210
Amos 7:16 KJV Now therefore hear thou the word of the LORD: Thou
sayest, Prophesy not against Israel, and drop not thy word against the
house of Isaac.
Jonah 1:1 KJV Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son
of Amittai, saying,
Micah 1:1 KJV The word of the LORD that came to Micah the
Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of
Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.
Zephaniah 1:1 KJV The word of the LORD which came unto
Zephaniah the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah,
the son of Hizkiah, in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of
Judah.
Haggai 1:1 KJV In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth
month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the LORD by
Haggai the prophet unto Zerubabbel the son of Shealtiel, governor of
Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying,
Zechariah 1:1 KJV In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius,
came the word of the LORD unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the
son of Iddo the prophet, saying,
Malachi 1:1 KJV The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by
Malachi.
In the collection of verses above, we see the use of the term

“The Word of the LORD” all through the entire Hebrew Scriptures.
We also could search the cousin term, “Thus says the LORD” and
find that the record we have been given in the Hebrew Scriptures
is understood to be written down because it is the Word of
Yahweh. Whenever a prophet spoke in the “Old Testament,” we
are told it was because the Word of the LORD came to him. This is
a characteristic of Scripture that can be seen as a requirement for a
text to be considered Scripture. The Books of Moses are seldom

refuted as being Scripture so I will not debate that issue here.
It wasn’t up for debate according to Jesus. If Yeshua is the
manifest presence of God as is claimed in the Old and New
Testaments, then His words are to be embraced regarding the
issue of what books of the Bible are authoritative. If He calls the
Old Testament Scripture then it is Scripture. Hear His testimony
in the verses below from the Apostolic writings. Take note as you
read how Yeshua called the Old Testament “Scripture.”
And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders
rejected is become the head of the corner:
Mark 12:10
And he closed the biblion, and he gave it again to the minister, and
sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were
fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this
scripture fulfilled in your ears.
Luke 4:20-21
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly
shall flow rivers of living water.
John 7:38
Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go
up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets
concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
Luke 18:31
We see above, the Messiah not only affirmed the Old

Testament as Scripture, He also validated the Prophets, which is to
say the Books that were considered to have been written by or as a
result of what the prophets had spoken. One is able to recognize
the Old Testament as Scripture based in the internal testimony of
that work and based on the testimony of Yeshua as recorded by the
apostolic writers.
The New Testament Calls The Old Testament Scripture
212
According to the record we have of Yeshua’s words, we read of His

approval of the Hebrew Scriptures. That approval carries with it
the policy that the Scriptures are not to be added to. Yahweh
indicates His version of the Scriptures is “Holy Scripture” and
Yeshua indicates the same version is “Holy Scripture”; therefore,
nothing is to be added to it or taken away from it because all that
was intended to be used as Holy Scripture has been established.
This was established by God and not by man. Only the words
Moses was told to write down are to be counted as Scripture. That
Moses was given a word directly from the voice of the Father, does
not mean that it was to be or is to be considered Scripture.
Did Yeshua consider anything other than the currently
accepted Scriptures, to be Scripture? He didn’t even consider His
own words to be Scripture. He certainly made a practise of quoting
Scripture but He did not speak any new Scripture into existence.
When confronting a question given by the scribes that was
intended to trick Him regarding the future resurrection, Yeshua,
referring to the Old Testament, told them they are in “error not
knowing the Scriptures.” Elsewhere Yeshua confronts some
heretical thoughts by telling his challengers that they search the
Scriptures thinking they will find eternal life in the words of the
Scripture. Their idea was that if they were to perform each and
every command found in the Scriptures to an exceptional level,
they would achieve salvation. His statement as recorded for us
says;
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and
they are they which testify of me. John 5:39
The “New Testament” Does Not Call Itself Scripture.

Some do try to refute the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures are Holy
Scripture claiming they are just compiled by fallible men. The
argument is they are only the work of politico religious groups who
wanted to control the story the people heard. This argument
refuses to accept the testimony of the “Old Testament” about itself,
and the testimony of the Gospels and Letters that is given us. The
Hebrew Scriptures’ testimony of itself is one that claims the
writings are sacred and holy and are truly the Word of Yahweh.
The Testimony given us in the “New Testament” about the Hebrew
Scriptures is one that says the Hebrew Scriptures are sacred and
Holy and are truly the Word of Yahweh. Conversely, the Testimony
the “New Testament” gives of itself is one that claims itself to be
various accounts of telling good news and of letters to individuals
or individual groups. The “New Testament” does not call itself
scripture. Although some claim that Peter is calling Paul’s letters
“Scripture” in his instruction in 2 Peter, it seems more sure that
Peter, being a first century Jewish teacher, would know that he is
not allowed to decide what is Scripture and what is not. Peter
would not make the mistake of claiming Paul’s letters are
Scripture.
Would Paul or any of the first century believers think of mere
letters as Scripture? Paul called his writings letters and they were
always written to specific groups. Paul, as a Hebrew of Hebrews as
stated earlier, would in no way accept that Peter was calling his
writings Scripture. The history of Hebrew Scriptures reveals that
typically a letter was not placed in a venerated position until after
the death of the writer. The exception to this pattern of course is
no other than the Torah, which was written by Moses and placed
in the side of the Ark of the Covenant. Peter is not calling Paul’s
writings Scripture. It would be ludicrous for Peter to claim the
letters of another man who was still living are Scripture. He is
more likely saying that the Scripture Paul uses in his writing is
difficult to understand by those who are “unlearned.”
As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which

are some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.
2Peter 3:16 KJV
Being unlearned by the way, means one is not taught in the Torah,
the Psalms, and the Prophets. Unlearned cannot mean uneducated
214
in the sense of not having the advantage of schooling in an

educational institution. This is proven by recognizing the apostles,
of which Peter was one, were themselves unlearned fishermen.
And it is certain that Peter is not including himself among those
who twist the words of Paul and the Scripture Paul uses in his
letters when he stated the unlearned twist Paul’s words to their
own destruction.
So to put a fine point on it after the foregoing discussion;

the New Testament is not Scripture. Even if religious folk find a
Satan doctrine in the way they misrepresent and misunderstand
the New Testament, then it is an invalid doctrine. Doctrine can
only come from the Old Testament according to the Apostles, the
Prophets, the Messiah, and yes… even God Himself.
216
CH AP TE R 7
Where Did Jesus Learn About
Satan?
Why Do We Believe The New Testament Is Scripture?
Did you know facts can be presented right in front of a person who
has a strong desire to believe something and unless they are truly
able to be open to changing, they will find a reason to not budge on
what they believe. They believe so intensely that their truth is
accurate that they ignore how their belief contradicts reality. This
is often the case with people who are shown the “New Testament”
was not used by the Messiah and His apostles or any of the first
century believers.
Ahh yes, the New Testament, what a famous piece of

literature. Just about everyone has seen one or has heard the New
Testament quoted in popular speeches by politicians and change
agents throughout the world. Used by millions in cultures all over
the world, we have come to venerate the very pages of what we are
told is a Holy Book. We are told these oft difficult to understand
writings are the very words of God, infallible in their content and
technical merit. This great compilation, a powerful anthology of
ancient instructions, has been put to the test by thousands of
scholars and opined on by millions of religious men and women.
Women and men who claim they would die for their Jesus who is
written about in the pages of a book they practically worship. So
one can hardly question the claim that the New Testament is
Scripture. After all, it is supposed to be a book that contains the
CHAPTER 7 - Where Did Jesus Learn About Satan? 217

very words of life and according to common thinking, contains the

very doctrine of an infernal creature called Satan. If that is the case
maybe we shouldn’t question if the New Testament is Scripture.
Should we?
Ahha…you got me! The fact that many would say we
shouldn’t question what the New Testament is, is the very reason
that we must question it. Yes we should without bias or prejudice,
question the very book that millions accept is authoritative about
Jesus and about Satan. Anything that is “unquestioned” by the
masses is absolutely worthy of questioning. Some of those
questions will be… Who told us the New Testament was Scripture?
How long have we been told the New Testament is Scripture? Did
any of the first century believers think it was Scripture? It is
because Christendom gets its doctrine of Satan from the New
Testament that these questions should be considered. If we are
going to find a Satan doctrine in the New Testament we might as
well find out if it is Scripture on the same level as the Old
Testament. Christianity derives its Satan doctrine from the New
Testament. Yet the Bible teaches that doctrine must come from the
Old Testament just as it did for Christ and the Apostles. Therefore
if we are to put this nonsensical doctrine of the Devil to rest we
must clear up the confused tradition that claims the New
Testament is Scripture.
When dismantling a belief in a cosmic Satan it is not

enough to simply teach what the words meant in the time they
were written. The words continue to be misunderstood and those
reading from them continue to believe the New Testament is
authoritative in what they believe it teaches. Therefore, even if the
words of the New Testament were teaching a Satan doctrine, we
need to ensure that that document is authoritative. In showing the
New Testament has no authority to design a new doctrine we can
add this to the instruction on the topic and determine that a Satan
doctrine is not biblical. If the way Christianity teaches it is not in
agreement with the teaching on sawtawn in the Old Testament,
then the Satan doctrine of Christianity is definitely not biblical.
218
The New Testament is not only considered a replacement for

much of the “Old Testament” by many; but it is readily considered
Scripture in every sense as the Old Testament is. Yeshua
considered the Old Testament Scripture and knew where to look
for His doctrine. Christ would have taught about “the satan” based
on what is found in the Old Testament. Would anyone before the
political theologians got their fingers in the pie have considered
the New Testament to be Scripture? If we are going to be honest in
our assessment of how and where the “New Testament” came to be
and came to be considered Scripture, then we have to ask “Why do
we call the New Testament Scripture?”
Looking objectively at the issue, we are able to see the
answers to those questions. I know how difficult it can be to take a
concept or a belief one has had their whole life, a belief one has
had that has been with Christianity for hundreds and hundreds of
years, look at the evidence and weigh the facts, then actually
change the belief. Few people out there say they want the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And few bother to search
for the truth as if it was more precious than gold. If a truth is
presented to them, their conditioning, which is their emotional
attachments and intellectual structure of the concepts, ideas, and
stimulus that has formed their belief system, prevents them from
shifting away from what they had believed was true to what the
facts say is true. Some folks won’t change their belief even when it
is proven that what they believe might be an error. Based on the
biblical understanding of devils, clinging to a belief that is false is
to have a devil. Belief is a powerful force. Simply believing
something is often enough to make it real for a person. For
instance, why do people believe ghosts and spirits are real? Many
people have a strong desire to believe in the supernatural and
where there is strong desire to believe; one finds themself trapped
by their own self-deception.
Believing The Supernatural Starts With Hope

In Flim Flam, a book by James Randi telling of his work testing

people who believed they had some type of supernatural power,
Randi tells the story of a water dowser named Stanley J. Wojocik.
“Water dowsing,” or “water witching” as many of us know it, is the
practice of finding water by walking through a field or similar
location while holding either a “Y” shaped branch or an “L” shaped
piece of wire in each hand. The dowser waits for it to react in a
manner that indicates to the user water is present at that location.
The practice of dowsing is also used to locate other allegedly
undetectable, subterranean elements such as metals.
Wojocik appeared with Randi on a radio show called “The
Candy Jones Show” and Randi was the co-guest ready to
investigate if his “superpowers” were real. Wojocik had been
offered a $10,000 prize by Randi, upon confirmation of his
powers. In the broadcast, Wojocik had brought his dowsing rods.
Among other claims of Ghost Hunting and séances, Wojocik
claimed he could detect the presence of certain things that he
passed over with his dowsing rods. Along with detecting water,
Wojocik claimed to be able to locate metal objects. In this instance,
the dowsing rods were two “L” shaped pieces of metal such as coat
hangers bent to shape. The short end of the “L” shape is held in
each hand and when the substance that is to be detected is passed
over, the rods either cross over or they diverge away from each
other; supposedly completely on their own. As I have indicated,
the most common use of this “superpower” is to find water hidden
under the ground, sometimes at great depths. In this instance, the
practitioner was indicating his ability to find metal and such things
as coins.
Randi had prepared for this encounter and asked if the rods
would respond to a small pile of coins if they were placed on the
table. Wojocik said the rods would respond and Randi placed
some coins on the table. As was expected, the rods crossed when
Wojocik passed them over the coins. When asked if the coins
covered with a piece of paper would work, Wojocik said yes and
after covering the coins Randi noted that indeed the rods proved
to find the coins. “How about in an envelope?” Randi questioned.
220
Wojocik stated that the rods would certainly continue to work if

the coins were in an envelope. Randi then produced nine other
envelopes with a piece of paper in all but the one with the coins.
The envelopes all looked the same and the one with the coins could
not visually be differentiated from the others.
After several tries at identifying the envelope with coins by
the use of the rods, Wojocik proved to be a complete failure. He
scored zero in the test. At one point he claimed a metal pipe
running through the floor beneath one of the envelopes caused the
rods to react and land on an envelope with paper in it. In response,
Randi relocated that envelope for the subsequent tests and did not
place any envelope over that spot. Wojocik, after failing miserably
to cause his “magical rods” to locate the envelope with coins in it,
claimed there was “metal masses” in the room that were throwing
him off. Randi addressed this complaint against the testing
environment by mentioning to Wojocik and the host of the show
that the table the coins had been on was a thirty-pound solid cast-
iron table. It was stated by Randi how odd that this table was not
able to affect the rods but a small pile of coins did. Wojocik had
not known the table’s composition and could only cause the rods
to respond because he was subconsciously moving the rods. This is
called an ideomotor response and when a dowser can
subconsciously gather information that allows him to know where
his target item is, the subconscious takes over and the rods
“mysteriously” move.
In this test the subject failed miserably to locate the metal
objects. No matter how conclusive a zero percent hit rating was in
this test, Wojocik still believed in his “power.” His level of self-
deception, although unconscious, was so profound that he decided
to deride Randi as a person who “There is no sense talking to.”
Wojocik reasoned, that because of other beliefs about the afterlife
which Wojocik held that Randi didn’t, it was useless to dialogue
about the “dowsing” process any longer.
Randi proved Wojocik to be impotent in his alleged power
and Wojocik was so incensed that he chose to target his attacks on
the exposer focusing on an area unrelated to the dowsing test so as

to try to bring discredit to the tester. This is typical of many who

are exposed as frauds. The point is that Wojocik was
unquestionably shown to be a fraud, yet he refused to accept the
non-existence of a power he so strongly believed in. It is indeed a
strange phenomenon to see when facts are so clearly placed before
a believer in something but the believer refuses to consider how
they might have fooled themselves along with most everyone else.
Denial, deception, and delusion truly are sisters in these cases.
You Can Show Some People The Facts But They Still
Cling To Their Belief
When certain people are shown there were hundreds of apostolic

writings and letters circulating and being debated over as to their
authenticity in the early second century and beyond, they cling to
their belief that the New Testament is Scripture. When they are
shown that the “Old Testament” calls itself a Holy document and is
self proclaimed as “The Word of Yahweh” and this is a fact the
“New Testament” agrees on, they remain unwilling to question the
authority of their precious New Testament. It is as if they worship
the New Testament itself. Moreover, when they are show that
neither the Old nor New Testaments call the New Testament a
Holy document, they still refuse to consider that the book they
have come to practically worship is not Scripture. Even when they
are shown that the New Testament calls the Old Testament,
“Scripture” yet only calls itself letters and gospels, the evidence is
still not enough to see them budge on their belief. If they are
shown that the development of the “New Testament” came about
through the political decisions of a group of fourth century men
who appointed themselves as the ecclesiastical authority, the “New
Testament” loyalist still remains unmoved. Even if they are shown
that the men who produced today’s “New Testament” could not
agree on a number of theological and technical issues pertaining to
the Scriptures and Apostolic writings, the devout New Testament
loyalist still defends his position. Knowing the Catholic consortium
222
decided on the canon by a common agreement, the person who

believes in the New Testament as a document with authority that
parallels or superseded the Old Testament continues to advocate
the supremacy of the New Testament. Facts and evidence from
history is not enough for some to see their belief is based on a
vapid theory.
It is disappointing to say at, least that the pompous men from

the early centuries of Christianity, who appointed themselves as
the ecclesiastical body for religious decisions, are responsible for
defining the direction Christianity would go. Who would have
known then how their influence has had an impact for thousands
of years. Today, when investigating New Testament believing
groups, we find they have a surplus of zeal in defending their belief
in the New Testament as authoritative, but their zeal lacks
knowledge and they have become stubborn. Their stubbornness
causes them to refuse to divert from their present belief that the
New Testament is Scripture.
Did Satan Invent Over 33000 Different Sects Of

Christianity Or Did We?
Often if people are shown that there have been over 33000
different flavours of Christianity since the first century43, and this
mostly transpiring as a result of the “New Testament” being called
Scripture, they still choose to believe the “New Testament” is
Scripture. When shown the “Old Testament,” that is the Torah,
will go forth from Zion, many fail to realize there is no mention of
a New Testament that will be used in the future Kingdom of
Messiah. That is to say, in the Messianic Kingdom of the future it
is the Torah that will be used. All these issues can be laid in front
of a staunch New Testament defender and still the puzzle pieces
somehow don’t line up in their minds and they must at all costs
43
The number has been calculated at 33,834 according to World Christian Database
http://www.worldchristiandatabase.org/wcd/about/denominationlist.asp

still adhere to their false belief that the New Testament is

Scripture. The reference to the Old Testament being used in the
future kingdom of God is our greatest testimony to indicate that
the Hebrew Scriptures, specifically the Torah and not the “New
Testament”, is the authoritative document used for training the
people of God.
Isaiah 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us
go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob;
and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for
out of Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of the LORD from
Jerusalem.
Micah 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us
go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of
Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his
paths: for the Torah shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the
LORD from Jerusalem.
Perhaps The New Testament Never Was Scripture And

Never Will Be According To God
As we have seen, there is no indication anywhere in the documents

written prior to the New Testament that the “New Testament” will
be a source book for instruction in the period of the Messiah’s
reign and beyond. Can you imagine the Levitical priests past,
present, or future, teaching a group of learners from the Torah,
and then saying, “Let’s take a look at what Paul said, oh look, Paul
said Christ was the end of the Law. I guess we can chuck out the
Torah and we’ll just read from the New Testament.” Facts are, the
Torah will be taught in the future Kingdom of God and the letters
of the Apostles will not be taught. Looking through the entire
Scriptures, there is no way that the “New Testament” will be
considered Scripture by those in the Messiah’s Kingdom. Jesus
Himself told us His doctrine is not His own but it is the Father’s
doctrine. He told us He only speaks what the Father speaks and He
told us the Torah is not abolished. The Word of God in the time
224
before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was not the “New

Testament.” And just because theologians from the early second
century onward have struggled to implement a standard
compilation of letters to be used by the apostate Christian Church,
does not mean we should accept their decision as being from
Yahweh. God walked the earth in the form of Yeshua and He
accepted the Hebrew Scriptures that were in use in His day as
Holy.
Is The New Testament Still Valuable Even Though It’s Not

Scripture?
Please don’t get me wrong here, I am not saying as some have, that
we shouldn’t take all the truth and instruction that we can from
the Apostolic Testimony and Gospels. To say we should not pay
attention to those profoundly true and Torah supportive writings
would be foolhardy. There is a great benefit to learning from the
Gospels and Letters and I for one am not about to say they are not
inspired by Yahweh. But in what sense are they inspired? And just
because a letter is inspired by God does not qualify it to become
Scripture. The Creator has inspired many men, women, and
children throughout history to speak profound truths and pen
eminent, noble, and true statements that are absolutely inspired
by Yahweh, yet that does not make those statements Scripture. I
have read many inspired letters, such as letters that extol the
greatness of our God and testify to the magnificence of the work of
Yeshua as well as encourage the reader to follow ways that will
bring life to the reader. Does this make the letter Scripture? Just
because a written letter speaks truth and has Scripture from the
“Old Testament” in it does not make it Scripture. The word
“scripture” means “a Holy Writ.” For our purposes we will
acknowledge the common understanding of the word “Scripture.”
It suggests a piece of literature penned by a person inspired by
God and is purposed for doctrine, instruction, reproof, training in
righteousness, and is the standard by which all other religious

writings are to be measured. Technically, as a word, “scripture”

simply means “writing.” To be fair, if those who call the “New
Testament” scripture, mean simply that the documents contained
in the “New Testament” are just writings, then that is fine.
However, by calling the “New Testament” “Scripture,” very few of
us have meant anything other than suggesting it is the Holy Word
of God and was given the same authority as the “Old Testament,”
by men who were supposedly ordained to define it as Scripture in
the early centuries of Christianity.
Why Haven’t You Read All Of Paul’s Letters?
If the letters we have in the New Testament from Paul are to be

considered Scripture, then what of the other letters Paul wrote?
Are the letters contained in today’s “New Testament” the only
letters Paul wrote or did he write others? Why are the others not
around and considered Scripture? For instance, why aren’t we
reading the letter to the Laodiceans in our assemblies today? Have
you heard about the letter to the Laodiceans? Perhaps we should
read it because Paul told us we are to read it. If Paul’s letters are
supposed to be Scripture and then supposed to be exhortations
and instructions to all of us reading them for all time, then when
he tells the assembly in Colosse to read the letter he sent to the
Laodiceans, why have we not done so?
And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in
the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the
epistle from Laodicea.
Colossians 4:16 KJV
Can we be so blinded by the history of false apostolic

succession that we are incapable of re-evaluating what we believe
about the “New Testament?” Are we too entrenched in our blind
belief that we won’t even question why we believe what we do to
possibly come to a different conclusion? Is it accurate for a letter,
such as is contained in the New Testament to be considered
Scripture? Would Paul have considered the letter of 1st Peter
226
Scripture? How about John the Revelator, supposedly the last to

write a book that made it into the New Testament, why didn’t he
mention any of the New Testament documents as being
considered Holy Writ or Scripture?
Don’t forget, as late as the mid second century Justin Martyr
wrote about the practice of the church in his locale. He tells of the
churches practice of reading from what he calls the “memoirs of
the apostles.” Justin was not recognizing the “New Testament” as a
book of Scripture. To Justin and the churches he writes about, the
apostolic letters were not a New Testament, they were simply
memoirs. Indeed they were important and though there were
around 200 different letters from Apostles circulating at the time,
those read by the churches were known as memoirs.
Angellah (my wife) put it really well one night when we were
having a family discussion about the purpose of the “New
Testament.” She said that the “Old Testament,” the Torah the
Psalms and the Prophets, is the foundation that we are able to
stand on. The Hebrew Scriptures is the standard by which all other
letters are compared, to see if they agree with the foundation. A
sound explanation for how one should perceive the “New
Testament” is that it is a support for one’s faith through providing
the testimony of witnesses to the first century appearance and
ministry of Christ in the first century. Today we have no living,
eyewitnesses to testify to the happenings of the first century as
they relate to Messiah’s appearing and message, so we get to read
about it in the letters of the “New Testament.” Even though there
is not one shred of original manuscript evidence for the New
Testament, it seems probable that the Apostolic writings are our
best available witness to the Messiah’s life and work.
The point is that we needn’t take any new doctrines from the
Gospels and Letters because the “New Testament” is not provided
to us so that we design or form religions or doctrine. Rather, it is
valuable to support the religion and doctrine already taught from
the “Old Testament.” I think we would have seen less diversion
from the original message and less confusion about the message if
we would have perhaps not accepted the man-made separation of

the Old and New Testaments as if development of two Testaments

had been ordained by God himself. By accepting the “Bible” as we
have it today in Christianity, we reject, in a sense, the authority of
the Hebrew Scriptures. We would do a wonderful thing by using
the Gospels and Letters to their full and proper intent as a
testimony to the Messiah. Calling them as Justin called them, “the
Memoirs of the Apostles,” we would no longer see the books of the
“New Testament” as Holy Writ that is given us in order that
theologians might design new doctrine. We have already seen the
“Old Testament,” is spoken of by the writings of the apostles as
being the compilation that is good for doctrine. Yeshua said his
doctrine was not new and therefore he continued in full
affirmation of the Hebrew Scriptures as the only acceptable body
of literature that is to be called Scripture.
Many well intentioned people in the world shudder at the
thought of questioning the purpose of the “New Testament” or
recoil at the suggestion that the “New Testament” is not
“Scripture.” In a twisted form of thinking, they “in faith” accept the
premise that the New Testament is Scripture and fully choose to
ignore any evidence of the Bible’s testimony to itself and about
itself. They will not budge on the possibility that the New
Testament is not Scripture. There seems to be a fear which
pervades the thought of the one trapped in a mindset that was
born not by the apostles and the Messiah, but by the Greek
theologians who became the ones steering the masses in the early
centuries of this Common Era. Those early Greek religious leaders
who were the steering committee for Christianity used a bunch of
letters to define doctrine and practice, yet they misunderstood so
much of what the writer intended. Eventually using the letters that
were said to be sacred apostolic writings became a religious act in
many assemblies. How could they not move in that direction with
the strong advocacy that the apostolic writings be called the New
Testament in the mid to late second century? Men and their
decisions about these letters were venerated and the words that
had supposedly been written by the hands of Apostles about the
Messiah were wrongly elevated to the status of Scripture. Today
228
we are witness to the practice of giving exalted status to the

opinions of men. Dead men’s theology is believed to be accurate.
Catholicism is brilliant at producing men who are believed to have
spiritual authority by the broad affirmation of the authority that
comes from the Pope and his council. Perhaps we ought to have a
hard time accepting the counsel of a group of men who have
twisted the doctrine of the Scriptures to claim that their religious
leaders, Catholic Priests, should not marry. This 12th century
addition to the faith of the Catholics is only one reason we might
want to question the ecclesiastical decision of this self appointed
voice of God. Celibacy and prohibition of marriage keeps these
men from obeying their Scriptural right to be fruitful and multiply.
In 1123, celibacy was made official. There are other reasons that
would shed light on the question of why the Papacy is said to have
so much authority in spiritual matters but that topic is not mine to
deal with presently. Is it too much to ask that we consider the
mountain of evidence that shows the New Testament is not
Scripture and we examine the men who decided to make it “equal”
to God’s word?
How Does It Feel To Be Told The New Testament Is Not

Scripture?
This is neither a light topic nor an easy topic for many to digest.
The contortions on the faces of many Christians and Messianics
when they are challenged with the concept that the “New
Testament” is not Scripture are telling. A bibliolater is one who
essentially worships the bible by applying such veneration to the
Book itself that it becomes an idol. Many bibliolaters reveal their
heart by actually having a physical response at the hearing of a
statement such as this. Many will say that they believe the “New
Testament” is Scripture and that when they heard you say it isn’t
Scripture, it didn’t sit well in their spirit. This spiritual game is
done in an effort to have you believe they are in tune with the Holy
Spirit. Who is the one speaking to their spirit? Might I suggest that

it is not the Holy Spirit who is causing their spirit to become

unsettled, rather it is the deeply entrenched religious mindset that
has been taught them repeatedly through their lifetime. This
uneasiness is the result of their cognitive dissonance. The hearer
has a thought that comes into disharmony with the facts they are
presented with, therefore they experience disharmony in their
mind.
What we are likely seeing in these uncomfortable feelings and
angst from the New Testament loyalist is a typical response
because of a challenge to a long held belief. The fact of that belief
being challenged doesn’t sit well or feel good to that person. The
physical feeling that comes upon a person who is entrenched in an
error is too often the unheeded cue that they should maybe be
listening to the opinion of the one sharing with them. The
emotional and physical responses that manifest should trigger the
desire to scrutinize the belief honestly and critically. Uneasy
feelings should not be a cue for us to stop searching and
questioning, they should be the motivation to search all the more
for answers. This type of honest scrutiny is invaluable to aid in
determining if they came to believe what they do apart from the
facts and from what is taught in the Holy Scriptures. Change is
almost always hard and when a foundational belief of a person is
being shaken, the feelings of being confused or unsafe are normal.
These feelings though, are misinterpreted by the affected and will
become the reason for the resistance to change in many cases. One
would be wise to allow these feelings, these “red flags” if you will,
to be the impetus to explore the possibility of that particular belief
being incorrect.
Why Do You Believe What You Do?
So few North Americans are able to recognize the reason for their
feelings and they generally react to their feelings prior to honestly
assessing them. It is the rare person who asks why he or she is
feeling a certain way; thinking; “Hey maybe these feelings of
unease are not telling me to run the other direction as fast as I
230
can.” But instead thinking; “Hey, maybe these feelings mean I

should listen to the ideas and questions about what I believe and
do an honest assessment of where I’m at with these different
ideas.” Uneasiness at hearing a claim such as the New Testament
is not Scripture is not because the claim is wrong, rather it is likely
because you are one of the millions who has been brainwashed to
believe it is wrong. The person experiencing these feelings doesn’t
typically think the feelings are a cue to cause them to face the
challenge in front of them with a sharp mind. When one has a
belief challenged it should not be the practice to say, “Well, I can’t
even talk to you, you don’t believe in Santa Clause!” Instead, one
should consider engaging the arguments of the challenge to their
belief. In so doing, one is highly likely going to come to the truth
on one side or the other. If what one believes is actually true, they
will become better equipped to share their beliefs and to better
understand their beliefs as well as why they believe what they do.
Through the process of thoughts being exchanged with the person
who is challenging their belief, one can begin to enter a whole new
realm of understanding that might just bring them freedom in
ways they never thought they could experience before. If the
exploration process occurs, the one being challenged will at the
very least learn a more correct position on what it is they believe
about a certain concept or idea. Ultimately, through being open to
understanding that one’s feelings are compelling them to run from
a scary new idea, then one can grow and change by addressing why
they are so afraid of this “new idea.” The fearless questioner will
then be able to move closer to a true belief and move away from
having a “feet in concrete attitude” about their present belief.
It’s somewhat discouraging that so many North American
citizens are out of tune with their emotions. Most of us are so
adamantly dedicated to an existing belief and are too threatened to
consider if we might be in error. Instead of reacting to any
uncomfortable emotions perhaps sincere exploration of what is
being messaged by our emotions would be a healthier course of
action.

Do Fulfilled Prophecies Prove The New Testament Is

Scripture?
Another reason many claim that we are to accept the “New

Testament” as Scripture is because they read of prophecies that are
fulfilled in those writings. The suggestion is that due to the
presence of a testimony about prophecy fulfilled in the New
Testament, that body of literature can then be considered
Scripture. In the Apostolic testimony, we are given examples of
many fulfilled prophecies. For instance, the prophecy in Joel
chapter two about the “Holy Spirit” being given to the believers
was reported as happening in the Book of Acts on the Festival of
Pentecost. This is only one example of a fulfillment of prophecy
being recorded in the Apostolic Testimony. I use this example to
indicate that many are inclined to see the testimony of fulfilled
prophecy alone as a reason to accept the writings as if they are
Scripture. The reasoning is sensible in many ways when one thinks
of the value of having a written witness to a fulfilled prophecy in
order to confirm the accuracy of Scripture. However, many
prophecies that can be found in many of the prophetic books of the
Hebrew Scriptures have been fulfilled very recently. Many
prophecies are seen as fulfilled as recently as in the past
generation, at least in one form or another. The land of Israel
invariably comes to mind when one considers prophecy. The
monumental prophetic fulfillment of Israel becoming a sovereign
nation again is one recently fulfilled prophecy. Grant R. Jeffries
writes about the rebirth of Israel prophecies but we don’t consider
his book to be Scripture.
The rebirth of Israel is one of the most

extraordinary and unlikely of all the prophecies
in the Bible. In an earlier portion of this book we
examined the marvelous precision of the
prophecy in which Ezekiel predicted that Israel
would be reborn in the spring of 1948.
232
Jesus Christ foretold the rebirth of Israel in his

famous prophecy of the "fig tree" budding that
was recorded in Matthew's Gospel. Our Lord
declared in Matthew 24:32-35: "Now learn a
parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet
tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that
summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall
see all these things, know that it is near, even at
the doors. Verily I say unto you, This
generation shall not pass, till all these things be
fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
my words shall not pass away." No other
ancient nation ever ceased to exist for a period
of centuries and then returned to take its place
on the stage of world history. "Who hath heard
such a thing? Who hath seen such things? Shall
the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or
shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as
Zion travailed, she brought forth her children"
(Isaiah 66:8).
Most nations evolved gradually over the

centuries, such as Egypt or France. In the time
of the ancient prophecies, no one had ever
witnessed a nation being created "in one day."
Yet, in his prediction, Isaiah prophesied that
Israel would come into existence in "one day."
The prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel were
fulfilled precisely as predicted on May 15, 1948.

The return of the redeemed Israelites to the land is spoken of in

several places and we see one of those instances in Isaiah.
Therefore the redeemed of the LORD shall return, and come with
singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they
shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee
away. Isaiah 51:11 KJV
I do admit there are often numerous levels of fulfillment of a

prophetic utterance and therefore it is difficult to conclusively say
a prophecy has had its complete fulfillment in every case. That in
mind, if the recognition and recording of a prophecy that is
fulfilled gives cause for a writing to be considered “Scripture,” then
would the encyclopedia entries about the annihilation of millions
of Jews by the Hitler regime be considered Scripture? This
reprehensible act is seen by many rabbis as a fulfillment of a
prophetic judgment against the “Jews” because of their sin. This
great people and nation has frequently been said to have been
brought low by Yahweh because of their sin and many in the
Jewish culture have recognized the need to turn to Yahweh and
avoid retribution. Those who objectively look at the words of
Scripture are quickly able to detect that many bad things have
happened to many people including the Jews because of sin and
iniquity.
Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their
counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity.
Psalms 106:43 KJV
And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt shew this people all these
words, and they shall say unto thee, Wherefore hath the LORD
pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our
iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the
LORD our God?
Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken
me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have
served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and
have not kept my law;
234
Jeremiah 16:10-11 KJV
Should We Say Every Fulfilled Prophecy Is Scripture?
Consider the fulfillment of the prophecies that speak of the

punishment by Yahweh for sin. If the reason to position the “New
Testament” as Scripture is because it contains testimony about
fulfilled prophecy, should then the written record of every Jewish
persecution that has been recorded through literature be
considered Scripture?
Let’s consider further the written record of the restoration of

the land of Israel as a sovereign nation? There exists a prophecy in
Scripture of the return of the scattered Israelites to the land in “the
latter days.” It seems there has been a fulfillment of this prophecy.
Should then all the articles and texts about the happenings to
Israel which have been occurring since about 1948 be considered
Scripture? After all the written reports do testify to fulfilled
prophecy. Testifying to fulfilled prophecy seems to be a reason to
call a document Scripture, at least according to the arguments of
the New Testament loyalists.
I would submit that one could not reasonably claim the “New
Testament” is Scripture on the basis of it testifying to the
fulfillment of prophecy. Not even in the case of it testifying to the
Messiah who was prophesied to come. Just because a document
records the fulfillment of a prophecy in a specific manner does not
imbue that document with the same authority and inherent
characteristics of the Holy Scriptures that were used in the first
century. It would be good to remember here that not one of the
letters from the Apostles, nor any of the Gospel Records were
considered Scripture until many years after the Messiah, Paul, and
John were all dead.
Just Because A Letter Contains Scripture Doesn’t Make It

Scripture

Yet another assertion that is put forth to aid the argument

claiming the New Testament is Scripture is that it contains so
many verses directly from the Old Testament. I can see the
reasoning here because it is certainly powerful to speak or quote
Scripture in any format. Although a document may use Scripture
extensively, it is not equal with the source those quotes came from.
There are around 300 direct quotes in the “New Testament” of the
“Old Testament” and over 4000 allusions to the Hebrew
Scriptures. In an essay by Roger Nicole, we are told of the number
of Old Testament allusions that can be found in the “New
Testament.” Nicole provides this information for the reader;
If clear allusions are taken into consideration,

the figures are much higher: C. H. Toy lists 613
such instances, Wilhelm Dittmar goes as high as
1640, while Eugene Huehn indicates 4105
passages reminiscent of Old Testament
Scripture. It can therefore be asserted, without
exaggeration, that more than 10 per cent of the
New Testament text is made up of citations or
direct allusions to the Old Testament44
It is undeniable that the New Testament writers quote the
Hebrew Scriptures and allude to the writings in the Hebrew
Scriptures on more than a few occasions. The regularity with
which they quote the Hebrew Scriptures testifies to the
unquestioned confidence these early writers had in the Hebrew
Scriptures. The writers were not “writing” Scripture but they knew
that the text they were quoting from was undeniably seen as
44
“New Testament Use of the Old Testament” by Roger Nicole .This essay can be seen
at; http://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.html and is reproduced from Revelation
and the Bible, ed. Carl. F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), pp. 137-151.
236
“Scripture,” and was seen to be the word of Yahweh. It is clear in

first century writings from any of the alleged apostolic literature,
including the gospels and the Revelation that nothing other than
the Hebrew Scriptures was to be considered Scripture. Is it
possible that the apostle Paul sent a letter to a small called-out
assembly in a distant town and asked that they would read from
the Scripture he wrote so that the assembly might be
encouraged? Paul would not have thought his words to be
“Scripture.”
Would the recipients of the letters from Paul have thought
them to be Scripture when they received the letters from the local
letter carrier? Is there a reason that none of Paul’s letters, or any of
the Gospels declare themselves to be Scripture but almost
unanimously admit to being “letters”? The admission comes in
various forms but is always an unmistakable indication that what
is being read by the believing assemblies is just a letter. Whether
by the statement contained in the text of the writing where it calls
itself a letter, by the structure of the writing, or by the indication
that the writing is being addressed to a specific individual or body
of believers, the admission is clear that the documents are simply
letters. Because Paul uses Scripture from the Old Testament and
talks at length about the Scripture, does not make his letters
parallel or equivalent to the Hebrew Scriptures
If The New Testament Is Scripture Then Vehicle

Maintenance Advice Must Be Holy Words
The New Testament writings were never intended nor written as

Scripture. They were letters that dealt with various issues in
different areas. The letters were not difficult for the recipients to
understand because they knew the full question or issue that was
being addressed and they were privy to the cultural context they
were written in. In short one might say; the original hearers of
Paul’s letters did not believe Paul’s words were equal to Holy

Scripture. Consider the following example to help understand why

a letter should not be called “Scripture.”
If a wise man wrote a letter to you today, and in it there was a

lot of auto-maintenance terminology and instruction about
automobile care, how would you use it? What if that letter gave
lots of input to aid you in solving problems with your automobile
and to aid you in operating the automobile safely, how would you
use that letter? Should you use it to build yourself an automobile
as if it were a blueprint? Do you think your friend would be
pleased if you said his letter is a blueprint to build an automobile?
Your friend was simply writing to tell about things such as how to
get better gas mileage and how to use a block heater to warm the
engine block in winter. It would be foolish to presume that your
wise friend’s letter is intended to alter the manufacturer’s
instructions or to be used to design a new and improved
automobile. Your mechanically inclined friend is only trying to
explain how to properly use certain parts and aspects of your car
and to give you a good report on the model you are driving. It
would be totally inappropriate to give the letter as much authority
as the manufacturer’s manual when the intent of the letter was to
testify about the automobile. His letter was meant to address a few
problems you may have with the automobile and to instruct you in
a few different operational issues regarding various aspects of the
automobile. His letter is not a blueprint of original design, nor is it
a service manual for complete overhaul of the car; it is simply a
letter of helpful instruction. Although it uses references from the
service manual and clarifies matter found in the blueprint, the
instructional letter is intended to deal with a few issues you are
having with your model. How do think things would go if you let
all your friends and acquaintances read the letter only to have
them apply the writer’s advice to their own car situation? Perhaps
your friends cars are battery powered and don’t have a block
heater. Would your friend be pleased to hear that you and your
friends decided, “Hey, this letter is so good we should all do what
the letter says or better yet, we can finally build our own
238
automobile!” Knowing that the letter was intended to address

specific problems you were having with your automobile, what
might happen if that letter was received by others who were not
having the same problems? Perhaps they would make unnecessary
repairs or alterations to their vehicles believing they were
supposed to obey the instructions in the letter.
Even Helpful Instructions Need To Be Followed In The

Right Context
The readers of the letter about your car who were not the intended
recipients are acting on an advice that was meant for your car. The
letter was never intended to instruct the secondary group, but was
only meant to help your group with a problem. Certainly if a
secondary reader has the same car and same issues that you are
having then the letter can be applied to that situation but for the
most part, the letter of instruction is not applicable to most
readers. Car owners all over are now misapplying information
from your friend’s letter because they believed it was a letter
intended for all car owners for all time.
This story about information that was intended for one
audience, but was misapplied by another audience, is able to help
us see the picture and intent of Paul’s correspondence. Paul was
writing specific letters to specific people or communities who had
specific questions they needed addressing. Paul did not write
Scripture. Perhaps Paul’s letters were not written to you and I and
everyone in the world today who call themselves believers. They
were written to certain groups of people to address specific issues,
concerns, and problems. Yes Paul’s letters do contain helpful
instruction for certain situations and yes they do contain Scripture
but that does not make them Scripture.
Christ Calls The Old Testament Scripture
If Yeshua calls the “Old Testament” Scripture and the writers of

the “New Testament” books call their writings “letters,” why then

do so many decide to call both volumes “Scripture”? Paul gave

instructions for specific groups with specific questions and needs
that are not completely clear to us today. The Gospels and Letters
were not intended to be procedure documents to form a religious
group or new movement as much as they were encouragement,
instruction, and affirmation for diverse groups in the first century.
Neither a letter clarifying certain things about an automobile nor
an instruction manual for an automobile can be said to be a service
manual or a blueprint for production, but it must be called what
the authorial intent for it to be called was. If we honour the
authorial intent of the Apostolic writings, we can conclude that the
Torah the Psalms and the Prophets are the full instruction manual
for the people of God who have placed their faith in Messiah and
the New Testament is not. Doctrine is not to be created from New
Testament statements no matter how one understands or
misunderstands words like satanas and diabolos.
The authorial intent of each writer found in the “New
Testament” is clear. In the Apostolic Testimony, we find most of
the writings self-describing what they are through direct wording
or other indicators found in the opening remarks of each of these
writings. We are given the privilege of reading letters from
uniquely positioned men, sent to people and groups who they were
able to influence and guide. We are not reading letters that were
intended to be viewed as Scripture. If Jesus or any of the earliest
believers were to learn any doctrine it was not from the yet
unavailable “New Testament.” The Jesus of the Bible would have
gained His understanding as to what a satan was by hearing what
the Old Testament taught on the matter. And that was not even
close to what you and I have been taught by common religious
teaching today. SO when I ask the question, “Where did Jesus
Learn about Satan?” The answer does not include the New
Testament.
In an upcoming chapter, we will review what the New
Testament says about itself. We will see there is no evidence
internally for it to be called Scripture and considered to be as
authoritative as the Old Testament. This exercise is essential to our
240
topic because Christianity derives its Satan doctrine from the New
Testament. Therefore if we are to put this nonsensical doctrine to
rest we must clear up the confused tradition that claims the New
Testament is Scripture. Once we determine the New Testament is
not Scripture, we will have secured yet another piece to the puzzle
that reveals Satan is not real and we will be able to move forward.
Although that is no small task it is possible to do so… See you at
the next chapter.

242
CH AP TE R 8
The Pharisees Brought Satan To A
Synagogue Near You
Part of the answer as to where the obfuscated doctrines about

Satan and Hell came from, lies in remembering the Pharisees were
a sect that started only about three or four hundred years earlier
than the time of Christ. It is not common knowledge that many of
the doctrines of the Pharisees had developed from a group called
the Parsees or Parsis (pronounced par-sees). A “Parsi” was a
Persian Magi and professed all of the Persian ideology as it
pertained to the cosmic dualistic system of a good God and an evil
God both existing. As stated previously, numerous mystical
doctrines were introduced to the people of God from the Parsis
who eventually became the Pharisees. One such doctrine is the
Immortal Soul Doctrine. Kaufman Kohler tells of the notion of the
Immortal Soul Doctrine coming from nations other than the
Hebrew nation. Many of the doctrines of Christianity and Judaism
are borrowed from other religions.
The doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul is

widely different than the belief in Resurrection
and was adopted only by the Hellenistic Jews
who followed Plato’s philosophy, as did the
Medieval Jewish philosophers.45
45
Kohler, Origins of the Synagogue and Church, pg. 166
CHAPTER 8 - The Pharisees Brought Satan To A Synagogue Near You 243

Kohler is careful to explain that the possible state of eternal

compensation or punishment for those who are not receiving their
due in the earthly life was sought-after information by the
Hebrews. The answer that filled the intellectual void created by the
question of afterlife consequences would be imparted to them
through the Persians and other nations that purported a system of
what Kohler calls, “Retribution in the hereafter.”
The Aryan nations the Hindoos and the

Persians, however, besides the Egyptians, set
up and fashioned the world of Retribution in the
hereafter. The Hasidim, under the Persian
regime, adopted it, seemingly as an Apocalyptic
or secret lore, and from then it was transmitted
to the Pharisees, and at first probably kept
within an esoteric circle.46
The group that believed these afterlife ideas was a large

component of the scholarly class of Hebrews who left Persia after
the exile and returned to Jerusalem. It is no wonder Cyrus was so
eager to send the “Jews” back to rebuild the Temple. Going out
from his kingdom were a group of people, which included the
group eventually to become the Pharisees. This was an educated
group who had received, in the truest sense, the concepts of the
Zoroastrian dualistic religion and had added them to their ancient
Mosaic belief system. Cyrus was not threatened by the return of
the exiles as he saw quite clearly that their beliefs were of little
consequence to his own because many of the scholarly class of the
returning exiles held a dualistic philosophy just like the Persians.
Adding to the ancient pathways that came from Yahweh was
prohibited by the Mosaic Law, but subtle Persian influence was no
match for the will and constitution of large numbers of Jewish
exiles. As the main body of intellect responsible for transmission
46
Kohler, Origins of the Synagogue and Church, pg. 164
244
of the Torah, the Psalms, and the Prophets, these Pharisees were
not diligent to keep the dualistic philosophy learned in exile from
mixing with their previously balanced and monotheistic theology.
So the transmission of the Law was no longer pure, the Pharisees,
who were really recipients of mystic information that came down
to them through a line of Persian Magi called Parsi, wove false in
with the true and error in with that which was correct. In “The
Origins of the Synagogue and Church” Kohler writes of the
Pharisees and the development of their eschatology and ideology.
He tells how they assimilated some of the Persian belief system;
… since the Scriptures do not indicate a place of

punishment for those found wicked in the divine
judgment, or a place of reward for those found
righteous, the Apocalyptic writers borrowed
their ideas from the Persians. They selected the
valley of Gehinnom, the ghastly fire-place,
where under king Manasseh sacrifices had been
offered to Molech, as the place of punishment
for the souls of the sinners, who, according to
the measure of their wickedness, were to
undergo pain or annihilation under the direction
of Dumah, the chieftain of the netherworld. The
prevailing view of the Apocalyptists regarded
fire as the means of punishment for sinners.47
The Sadducees Had Some Heretical Input Too
The centuries immediately before and immediately after the

beginning of the Common Era brought on a form of mystical faith-
practices and beliefs because of the Pharisees’ influence. That
point is made regularly but the Sadducean side of the story is
47
Kohler, Origin of the Synagogue and Church, pg 168, posthumously 1929 The
Macmillian Company New York

important too. The Sadducees also played a significant role in the

evolution of Judaism, which evolved into Christianity. This group
had some beliefs that were not held by either the Pharisees or the
Essenes and disputes often arose between the groups, particularly
between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
Also a Hellenized group, it is understood that the Sadducees
did not maintain a pure Mosaic style of faith as the Scriptures
teach either. The ISBE gives valuable information on this group in
the article titled, Sadducees. Notice the statements on how
Hellenized the Sadducees were.
Tendencies of Sadducees Toward Hellenism as
Causing Rise of Hasidhim:
Probably the priestly party only gradually

crystallized into the sect of the Sadducees.
After the return from the exile, the high priest
drew to himself all powers, civil and religious.
To the Persian authorities he was as the king of
the Jews. The high priest and those about him
were the persons who had to do with the
heathen supreme government and the heathen
nationalities around; this association would tend
to lessen their religious fervor, and, by reaction,
this roused the zeal of a section of the people
for the law. With the Greek domination, the
power of the high priests at home was
increased, but they became still more
subservient to their heathen masters, and were
the leaders in the Hellenizing movement. They
took no part in the Maccabean struggle, which
was mainly supported by their opponents the
246
ḥăṣīdhīm, as they were called (the Hasideans of

1 Macc 2:42, etc.)..48
Why is all this important? That is a good question. The answer is

that to understand how demonology became part of our culture
today we need to explore the powerful influences of the religious
leaders that impacted Christian doctrine.
Believing In Satan Is A Motherhood Statement According

To Some
It seems clear from history that the concepts of the Greek and the
Persian cultures, both containing ideas of a cosmic evil being, were
slowly brought into the main belief system of many of the “Jews”
of the first century. This occurred over a period of hundreds of
years, which covered the time of the Jewish return from exile in
the early 500’s BC to the period of the second century of the
Common Era. Along the path to early Christian thought the false
understanding of whom and what was the cause of bad and evil
upon humanity came to be given a name. Two names of this
supposed supernatural force that opposes the omnipotent Creator
are “Satan” and the “Devil.” These terms, along with the word or
term “demon”, need to be explored to see if we can detect traces of
the path these terms followed out of the Persian exile into the
Greek and Greco-Roman system to nestle in Judaism and
Christianity. It was there that the idea of a real Satan became, as
one old friend of mine put it, “a motherhood statement.” By that
was meant, that having to prove there is a “satan” or “demons” is
like having to prove that your mother loves you. Some think that it
is so clear there is a cosmic “satan” why would someone even
question it anymore than questioning if a Mother loves her child.
Generally, it is accepted without question by everyone that their
48
Excerpt from International Standard Bible encyclopedia article, “Sadducees”

mother loves them. This is the idea of my old friend’s reference to

the existence of “Satan” as a motherhood statement.
There are those who think that everyone knows there is a
“satan” and therefore there is no reason to question it. Well, when
we look at the etymology and early understanding of the words
“Satan” and “demon” in an upcoming chapter, we may see that
sometimes it is ok to question if your mother loves you. In
considering the etymology, that is to say, how the words came to
become what they are today and from where are their origins, we
could quote many references that speak of the influence of the
Persian culture on the demonology concept that is entwined with
true biblical concepts.
We could quote those who are considered by the Catholic and
Christian religious systems to be “Church Fathers.” A survey of the
theology of many of the “Church Fathers” will reveal the diverse
theories of the concept of “Satan” and the understanding of places
such as Heaven and Hell. Many writers share facts about the
Pharisee ideology telling how it was affected and formed by ideas
that came from the Parsi sect. Clear testimony exists that teaches
the Pharisees received knowledge from a group of Persian Magi, or
wise men. It is put this way by Mark Willey in an internet article
on The Secrets of Zoroastrianism; I have highlighted a significant
statement in the article below.
PHARISEES VS. SADDUCEES
After Alexander conquered Jerusalem in 332

B.C. the direct Persian influence ended. From
this time to 73 A.D. the Jews were given
freedom of religion except for a brief
Hellenizing period from 198 B.C. to 165 B.C. A
council of Jews, called the Sanhedrin, was
established to resolve religious issues. It was
constituted of the two major parties, the
Pharisees and the Sadducees. Down to the time
248
of Jesus, the Sadducees, who called themselves

"purists,” believed in "no resurrection, neither
angel, nor spirit" - Acts 23:8. They believed
exclusively in the original law of Moses and
rejected the laws of the Pharisees: see
Josephus in Book XIII Chapter XI. Their god was
a national god. The Sadducees were the vast
majority of Jews. The politically connected
Pharisees were the Persian faction. The word
"Pharisee"; as well as "Parsee,” Persians in
India; and "Farsi" (Pharsee), the modern Iranian
language, are all derived from the name of the
Persian town or region of Fars. The connotation
given Pharisee was separated from the people
of the land, the am ha-aretz.
"Now it was from this very creed (of Zoroaster)

that the Jews derived all the angelology of their
religion...the belief in a future state; of rewards
and punishments, the latter carried on in a fiery
lake;...the soul's immortality, and the Last
Judgment-all of them essential parts of the
Zoroastrian scheme, and recognized by
Josephus as the fundamental doctrines of the
Judaism of his own times."
Only Pharisaism survived the fall of Jerusalem

to the Romans in 70 A.D. "Present-day Judaism
is Pharisaic Judaism." It was able to survive

because of its Zoroastrian pacifism.49(emphasis

added)
Did You Investigate Your Belief In Satan?
Whether the ideas that underlie the belief in Satan are sensible or
not is up to you to decide. When we maintain an uninvestigated
belief our tendency is to simply say, “Look around, look at all the
evil in the world, look at the overwhelming evidence of Satan and
demons in our culture. Look at the masses that believe in Satan
and look at all the media that swirls around this topic. Satan must
be real. However, those are only the myopic conclusions of an
unexplored belief. That said, one can see how the idea of a
supernatural entity sanctified for evil has become a mainstay in
this world. However, when you and I truly take time to understand
the beliefs we have it is refreshing to learn that what everyone
around us believes is only believed because everyone around us
believes it. A perpetuating cycle of reaffirmation takes place if you
and I don’t check our second-hand beliefs at the door and make a
bold move to find out just exactly how the idea of Satan and
demons flourished in the millennia long past. But, the difficulty in
these explorations is that they are not usually a matter of reading a
few lines or quotes from scholars. They take a surmountable
amount of work for most people. Investigating a belief is not for
the faint of heart or for the apathetic. A belief is only investigated
by those willing to set their version of the truth on the shelf for a
time while they unlock clues and evidence that may lead them
further from their version than they would normally be
comfortable with. There is a great reward for those who abandon
all lies and enter the realm of truly understanding why they believe
what they believe. Therefore, our work on the belief in Satan is far
from complete.
49
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/religion/zorobig.html Emphasis added.
Footnote 12 in the above quote is a reference to The Gnostics and their Remains, C.W.
King and G.F. Moore, London 1887, page 120. Footnote 13 is; Jesus and the Pharisees,
D.W. Riddle, page 3
250
We will continue to peel back the layers of the onion that

have been fused together over time and because of religious
influence. Layers of myth, lore, legend, and lie that have become a
belief in Satan. This belief is so entrenched that many will not
consider investigating their understanding to see if it agrees with
Scripture and history. Any doctrine that has brought so much fear,
confusion, and mysticism into Christianity needs to be unravelled.
With a little more work, a little more time, and a little more
understanding, we can confidently put this mythological monster
back into the fairytale it came from. We not only can Imagine
There’s No Satan…we can learn there is no Satan at all and
continue to learn about the Creator with a newfound sense of awe.

252
CH AP TE R 9
Who Gave Satan His Names?
The name Satan carries a huge set of ideas, images, and beliefs
with it. But this simple three letter Hebrew word (stn- ‫ ) שׂט ן‬was
innocuous and void of demonic associations before it entered
Jewish literature and Christianity. The word satan itself is a loan
word from the Hebrew language. In Hebrew it is sawtawn. And to
put it in the simplest possible terms the word satan is not a name.
It clearly referred to a human adversary or some type of
adversarial action from God against man. According to Hebrew
scholars, sawtawn and therefore the word “Satan,” was never
intended to be a name for a fallen angel. Searching the entire
Hebrew Scriptures, we are unable to find the word satan used as a
name. It is always a reference to an adversary and in the places
where it appears, we find sawtawn is preceded by the definite
article equivalent to “the”. In the Hebrew text it reads ha
sawtawn. This should be our first clue to direct us to consider
whether ha sawtawn is a name or not. Upon examination we learn
the satan is not a name and never was a name. Further more,
when we follow the word into the Greek language it becomes
satanas. Satanas is a transliteration of the Hebrew word
sawtawn. To transliterate a word is to change the spelling of a
word in order to achieve a pronunciation that is compatible with
the language into which it is being inserted. Any transliterated
word we find in the New Testament must be assessed as if it were
the original Hebrew word. As an example we find Francis A.
CHAPTER 9 – Who Gave Satan His Names? 253

Beffert notes this was done with the Greek term “baptizo,” which,
if translated, would be “to immerse, to plunge or to dip.”50
More information on the development of satanology and the
name “satan” can be found in a recent book called “The Birth of
the Devil, Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots,” by TJ Wray and
Gregory Mobley.51 The authors teach marvelously on the evolution
of the devil. In their work, they say that the word or name “Satan”
and the name for the evil one as seen in the book of Enoch,
“Mastema,” actually are derived from variant spellings of the same
word. The root word would be transliterated to be “s-t-n” or “s-t-
m,” and we have seen the use of these three Hebrew letters earlier
when we talked about the Hebrew word for adversary in Satan
Christianity’s Other God Volume 1. These writers also go on to
explain that the advent of second century Jewish literature such as
the book of Enoch, brought with it the use of Mastema and Satan
as proper names for the first time in Jewish literature. Other
names for the supposed cosmic archenemy of Yahweh came out of
apocalyptic literature. Mobley and Wray tell of the name Belial, or
Beliar.
Belial Is Not Satan
Belial is understood as an appellation for “Satan.” This name was

never intended to be affixed to a cosmic evil entity nor applied as a
proper name for Satan. If one studies the Old Testament character
Belial, he will learn that this character was a human who opposed
the Children of Israel and their God. Belial also was known in the
Scriptures through his wicked sons, the “sons of Belial.”
These sons continued the wicked line that Belial started. To
be known as Belial or as a son of Belial was to be known to be an
anti-Yahweh individual. One who is a “Belial” is one who goes after
other gods. Today and in the Apocalyptic period, the name Belial
became a name for “Satan.” Were it understood how the context in
Satan the Great Deception, Copyright  2007 by Francis A. Beffert

50
51
The Birth of the Devil, Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots,” by TJ Wray and Gregory
Mobley Palgrave Macmillan, 2005
254
Scripture indicates, we would see it refers to a person or system

equated with worthlessness. We will clearly see from the use of the
name Belial in the Hebrew Scriptures that it was never referring to
“Satan.” Assessing the reference to Belial in Paul’s letter to the
Corinthians stresses the concept that Belial and Christ do not have
any cohesiveness. Paul is only emphasizing the point that if one is
part of Christ and His kingdom then one should be diligent to not
“fellowship” with those who are worthless and choose to serve
other gods. The key is to not behave as Belial or his sons and be
identified as an infidel. This is how it is put in Paul’s letter;
And what agreement hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he
that believeth with an infidel. 2nd Corinthians 6:15
As a culture, so many have accepted the Apocalyptics’ use of

the name Belial as a name for “Satan.” And when Paul refers to
Belial, most believe that he is saying that Christ and “Satan” have
no accord. Paul is a Hebrew Rabbi and he spoke to his hearers in
terms he knew they would comprehend. True the hyper-spiritual
crowd of the day who had received their teaching and doctrine
from the Pharisees might have believed that Belial was “Satan.”
But Paul, after his Damascus road experience, would not have
propagated the inconsistent and Hellenized philosophies of the
Apocalyptics. Sure Paul identified with Yeshua the Messiah but
Paul’s perspective on Belial was that of the Torah. The term
“Belial,” as used in inter-testamental writings found among the
Dead Sea Scrolls, such as the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,
The Lives of the Prophets, and the Damascus Covenant, was an
innovation by the writers and was not the perspective of the Torah.
The Hellenized writers of those non-canonical documents felt the
need to affix a personal identity to a concept of the existence of
evil. Below we see how Belial is used in the Scriptures and by Paul.
Neither use is stating that Belial is anything other than a person or
persons opposed to the proper ways and worship of Yahweh.

Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you,
and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go
and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
Judges 20:13 KJV

Now therefore deliver us the men, the children of Belial, which are in
Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from
Israel. But the children of Benjamin would not hearken to the voice
of their brethren the children of Israel:

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he
that believeth with an infidel?
If Belial Is Satan Then So Is Ahaz
Belial is not a personal name for a character called “Satan.” It is

the name of a man opposed to righteousness. King Ahaz was
wicked and opposed to righteousness, as was his grandson
Manasseh under whom the morality in Israel hit an all time low.
No one has taken the names of these men and applied them as
personal appellations of a cosmic evil force in the way they have
with the name Belial. It is correct to use the names of these wicked
men as terminology applied to others who display similar
characteristics. We see this practice in the use of the name
Benedict Arnold. "Benedict Arnold" has become an expression
used to describe traitors and is recognized as such even in 21st
century America. No more should we apply Ahaz, or Mannasseh,
or even Benedict Arnold as a proper name for the mythological
Satan than should Belial be used as a name for “Satan.” The use of
a personal name to describe an undesirable behaviour has long
been an easily understood method that connects a person to
someone in the past who demonstrates the same undesirable
qualities. It is a case of mistaken identity to name the “evil” done
by Yahweh or the potential to choose evil that is always active in
man, either Belial, “Satan,” or any other name.
256
Let’s Look At “Other” Names For Satan
I would like to mention a couple of other names that have

variously been said to be names of “satan.” Just for posterity, it is
good for us to consider that there are other titles for this
mythological character that have grown out of apocalyptic
literature and Grecian thought. Samael is yet another name used
in the Apocalyptics that is often thought to be a name for “Satan.”
Samael means “the blind God” and appears in the Martyrdom of
Isaiah. The Jewish Encyclopedia teaches the following about
Samael;
Samael
Samael is the "chief of Satans" (Deut. R. xi. 9;

Jellinek, "B. H." i. 125), quite in the sense of
"the prince of the devils" mentioned in Matt. ix.
34; but, on the other hand, he is "the great
prince in heaven." (Pirḳe R. El. xiii., beginning),
who rules over angels and powers (ib.;
Martyrdom of Isaiah, ii. 2). As the incarnation of
evil he is the celestial patron of the sinful
empire of Rome, with which Edom and Esau are
identified (Tan. on Gen. xxxii. 35; Jellinek, l.c.
vi. 31, 109, etc.). He flies through the air like a
bird (Targ. to Job xxviii. 7), and, while the
ḥayyot and ofannim have only six wings, he has
twelve, and commands a whole army of demons
(Pirḳe R. El. xiii.). In so far as he is identified
with the serpent ("J. Q. R." vi. 12), with carnal
desire (Yeẓer ha-Ra'), and with the angel of

death, all legends associated with Satan refer

equally to him, while as a miscreant he is
compared to Belial (= "worthless"; see
collection of material in Bousset, "Antichrist,"
pp. 99-101).
All these descriptions of Samael show that he

was regarded simply as the principle of evil that
brought upon Israel and Judah every misfortune
that befell them.52
Lucifer is Not Satan He Is The Human King Of Babylon
The name or better yet, the word lucifer, was never intended by
the writer of Isaiah 14 to be Satan. We discussed this aspect of
satanology at length in Volume 1.
In ancient Babylon there was a great King. His name was
likely Nebuchadnezzar. This King was so renowned all over the
world that Yahweh decided to cause him to have a fall. Now the
king was thought to be a God and was known as the bright
morning star. The bright morning star was in fact the planet Venus
that rose before the sun in the morning sky. It was a star that was
bright in the morning. It was thought the Great Babylonian King
was an incarnation or manifestation of the planet Venus… a God to
any ancient Babylonian. Isaiah was told to speak out against the
King of Babylon and the assignment was to tell the King he was
about to fall from power.
4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of

Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden
city ceased!
52
Article excerpt is from,
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=106&letter=S, by Ludwig Blau
258
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the

morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst
weaken the nations!
Isaiah 14:4 and 12
The catch in seeing that Lucifer is not Satan is to know that the
Hebrew word was replaced with a Latin word by St. Jerome in
about 346 CE. When Jerome decided to write the Latin Vulgate
copy of the Septuagint he noted the Hebrew word helel was used to
describe the King. The word helel meant “shining one” or “bright
morning star” so Jerome chose the best Latin word he could find
to express the Hebrew term. Jerome used the word lucifer in place
of the Hebrew word helel. In so doing, Jerome had no intention of
telling us a name for Satan, he simply wanted to show that the
Great King of Babylon thought himself to be the morning star; a
god who rivalled Yahweh in splendour and power. Therefore the
metaphor about falling from heaven was used to articulate the
impending demise of the pagan king who weakened nations and
believed himself to be almost equal to the Creator.
Below is a note from John Wesley’s commentary that identifies the

King is the reference here. Wesley was wise to see this passage in
context and thus avoid claiming Satan is Lucifer.
Isa 14:12 Fallen - From the height of thy

glory. Lucifer - Which properly is a bright
star, that ushers in the morning; but is here
metaphorically taken for the mighty king of
Babylon.53
Azazel Is Not Satan
53
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible

Another name believed to be given to Satan is Azazel, which is said

to mean “the strong God.” Azazel is known as a character seen to
be the head rebel as the prince of the rebel angels. Apocalyptic
literature has him in a loftier role than the role of a Watcher in 1st
Enoch. The term for scapegoat that is found in Leviticus 16 verse 8
is the Hebrew word awzawzale. Revisionists who had access to the
writings of Enoch have applied the notion of Azazel as the prince
of demons found in the apocalyptic writings of Enoch, to the
scapegoat that is sent into the wilderness by the Israelite High
Priest on the day of atonement.(Leviticus chapter 16). For interest
sake, we will look at some information contained in the Jewish
Encyclopedia online edition about Azazel.
Leader of the Rebellious Angels.
This is confirmed by the Book of Enoch, which

brings Azazel into connection with the Biblical
story of the fall of the angels, located, obviously
in accordance with ancient folk-lore, on Mount
Hermon as a sort of an old Semitic Blocksberg,
a gathering-place of demons from of old (Enoch
xiii.; compare Brandt, "Mandäische Theologie,"
1889, p. 38). (Enoch viii. 1, ix. 6, x. 4-6, liv. 5, lxxxviii.
1; see Geiger, "Jüd. Zeit." 1864, pp. 196-204). 54
In the Book of Enoch, Azazel is the leader of the rebellious

giants in the time before the flood. According to Enoch, Azazel
taught men the art of warfare and how to make swords, knives,
shields, and coats of mail. As for what Azazel allegedly taught the
women, well the list is intriguing. Such “fleshly” things as the art of
deception by ornamenting the body, dyeing the hair, and painting
54
Excerpt taken from article on Azazel at
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2203&letter=A&search=azazel
260
the face and the eyebrows have been scandals applied to women.
The secrets of witchcraft and corrupting their manners are
credited to Azazel. These practices led them into wickedness and
impurity. Eventually Azazel was bound hand and foot by the
archangel Raphael and chained to the rough and jagged rocks of
Beth Ḥadudo. He is imprisoned there in utter darkness until the
great Day of Judgment, when he will be burned up in a lake of fire
forever.
What About Beelzebub?
Names of other beings such as Beelzebub and Lucifer are just two
in the long list of misapplied monikers said to represent the
“wicked one.” Neither of them were names of Satan according to
Hebrew scholars or the teachings of Scripture. The book, The Birth
of Satan, gives a comprehensive view of the names and evolution
of the “Satan” character. If we remember that Yahweh says the
“gods” of the heathen are “nothing” and are “no gods,” then we can
recognize that Beelzebub for instance, is an impotent, man
fabricated, god of the Canaanites. Knowing this we can more
appreciate that the name Beelzebub, as with Belial, Mastema, or
Samael, all have the inherent value of a fairytale character like the
tooth fairy or Tinkerbelle. These names have been employed in
texts later than the time of the Apocalyptics to express the false
belief in a cosmic entity. However, all along the evil activities that
these names were used to express were behaviours of a man or
even the latent evil potential itself in man.
When seen through the pre-exilic eyes and in the absence of
the imaginative writings of the inter-testamental period, one can
understand the personal appellations that are commonly
“nicknames” for “Satan” are nothing other than ancient names
reworked and applied to a misunderstood concept. The use of
these names was intended to bring an enlightened ideology on the

who and what of evil by affixing personal names to behavioural

issues born out of the heart of man
It is well known that the Gods of one nation often became the
demons of another, hence a title for a fabricated Canaanite deity
such as Beelzebub, became a prince of demons for the Jews and
also by extension for the Christians. The International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia makes note of the practice of labeling the
“gods” of other peoples with the terms “devil” or “demons.” Terms
that were developed in Greek thought to express an entity as being
a literal and tangible evil force yet had no such implication when
considered through the light of the Hebrew Scriptures.
It is a well-known phenomenon in the history of

religions that the gods of one nation become the
devils of its neighbors and enemies. When the
Aryans divided into Indians and Iranians, the
Devas remained gods for the Indians, but
became devils (daevas) for the Iranians, while
the Ahuras remained gods for the Iranians and
became devils (asuras) for the Indians. (ISBE
Beelzebub)
How Many Demons Are There?
The complex philosophy of demonology adopted from Persia,

which was so eagerly received by the Pharisees, inspired them to
actually publish what they believed to be the number of demons
that were active in the world. The Pharisees ended up being the
group closely connected to the people of Israel. They were closely
connected because they ran the synagogues in the nation during
the years after the exile and the years past the destruction of the
Temple in the first century.
In The Encyclopedia of Claims Frauds and Hoaxes of the
Occult and Supernatural, we are told the Talmud places the
262
number of active demons in the cosmos at 7,405,926. The writer

goes on to state that the Rabbinic number is one that appears to be
arrived at in part to out do the Occultists. We are informed the
Occultists state there are 7,250,000 literal demons in the
universe. If you consider all the “Gods,” of all the heathen nations,
of all time, you will see how so great a number is arrived at. It is a
fact those gods are seen as demons by one culture or another.
Sadly, Christianity, which includes Catholicism, tends to support
this idea through its focus on “Satan” and his demons as a force
determined to see the destruction of mankind and if possible
Yahweh. In light of all we have just talked about, it starts to
become clear that “Satan,” as a character with a will of his own and
a name of his own, was introduced through the Apocalyptic
writers. I encourage you to explore this distinct possibility further
using other resources. However, it is clear that the evil entity
known as Satan is a concept that came out of Persia with the men
who formed the sect of the Pharisees, a religious group that would
end up forming Rabbinic Judaism.
During this period, the yearning for harmony between the
Monotheistic faith of the Mosaic variety and the dualistic
philosophy of a Greek culture, proved to entice great
thinker/philosophers to design a demonology that seemed to
explain where evil came from and who caused it. In fact, the
Zoroastrian philosophy worked its way deep into the fibers of
Judaism and then Christianity, as it was a philosophy that claimed
the “Lord of Heaven,” Ahura Mazda, was exclusively good and
could therefore not cause any bad. Not wanting to see the evil that
had come upon them as being delivered by Yahweh, the
assimilated Jews leaving Persia fabricated a palatable description
of who they knew Yahweh to be. This left them with the perceived
need to identify the one responsible for the “bad.” No longer
believing, as Isaiah endeavoured to proclaim, that God creates evil
as well as makes peace, they determined that some other force was
responsible for the evil. As they began to develop an organized
system of religion that led to synagogues and then to churches for
Christianity, the Pharisees delivered the message as received from

the Persians. This message can be seen in the Apocalyptic

literature, where the fabricated ideas of demonology were repeated
and reinforced, eventually to be thought of as true. The message
being that the “bad” God’s people experienced was the result of the
anti-god force, which according to Persian religion was Ahriman.
Although unconnected linguistically, this evil entity came to
be the Satan of mystical Judaism and Christianity. As is
abundantly clear, the name “Satan” itself comes from the Hebrew
word sawtawn. “Satan” may have a linguistic connection to the
name of either Mastema or the Egyptian God Set, or perhaps
derived from both. Both suggestions of the origin of the name
Satan are plausible and history seems to point to both having an
impact on the development of the name “Satan.” Satan is a
composite character derived throughout history from many evil
influences of cultures across the world.
Yahweh Is One God But Satan Makes Two
In The History of the Devil, Paul Carus discusses how one nation’s
gods invariably become the demons of other nations. Ideas
gleaned from other nations deities became attributes that could be
applied to the Satan of today. Knowing this truly identifies that no
matter how small a Satan character is in the belief system of an
individual, he is classified as a god. Thus to have a belief in Satan
is to effectively believe in more than one God. Carus states:
It is noteworthy that Satan, in the canonical

books of the Old Testament, is an adversary of
man, but not of God; he is a subject of God and
God's faithful servant.
The Jewish idea of Satan received some

additional features from the attributes of the
gods of surrounding nations. Nothing is more
264
common in history than the change of the

deities of hostile nations into demons of evil. In
this way Beelzebub, the Phoenician god, became
another name for Satan; and Hinnom (i. e.
Gehenna), the place where Moloch had been
worshipped, in the valley of Tophet, became the
Hebrew name for hell in place of the word
Sheol, the world of the dead under ground.
Thus the very name of this foreign deity

naturally and justly became among the Israelites
the symbol of abomination and fiendish
superstition.55
Is It Hard To Admit You Have Two Gods?
It is difficult for Christians to admit they have a second God in

having their Satan. Oddly, when one attempts to illuminate this
fact and tries to remove their Satan, the Christian stands up tall
and goes to battle to prove Satan does exist. Although Satan is
never given the same place of worship in the Christian mind as
God, the word of God still says anything we give credit to for doing
the things God does, is a god. Following is a list of things God does
juxtaposed beside a list of things Christian tradition says Satan
does. I think if you honestly compare the two lists you will see
Satan, if he is real, is definitely a God. Although to Christians he is
not nor ever has been the God of worship and adoration that
Yahweh is.
55
http://www.sacred-texts.com/evil/hod/hod08.htm#fn_34#fn_34 from Paul Carus,
History of the Devil

Things God Can Do

Miracles
Gives thoughts to Things Satan Can Do
people Miracles
Appear in various Implant evil thoughts
forms Appear as a serpent
Fill a person’s spirit Fill a person’s spirit
Kill Kill
Control the weather Control the weather
Place diseases on Place diseases on
man man
Remove diseases Remove diseases
from man from man
Dispatch angels Dispatch angels
Test man (demons)
Hear our prayers Tempt man
Raise up leaders Hear our prayers
He brings evil Raise up leaders
Moves between two Does evil
worlds Moves between two
worlds
By understanding things in a way that alters our present day

concept of Satan, we are going to become free to accept full
responsibility as humans for all the evil done by man in the world.
Evil begets evil. Man chooses evil, which comes from his heart, and
at times, Yahweh replies with an evil act towards that man. There
266
are many religious and spiritual groups who refuse to believe God
can do anything “evil” or harm humans in any way. Often seen to
be judgment, an act of evil performed against a man by God is
really an opportunity to recognize who “GOD” is. Judgments are
opportunities. Why are these judgments sent? Perhaps the
judgments are sent by Yahweh as an opportunity for a rebellious
self-worshipping King or individual to consider the value in
submitting to the only God.
What Good Can Come From The Mystical

Intertestamental Writings?
The priceless value of the inter-testamental body of literature is

that it reveals to us exactly what the spiritual tone and ideology of
the period was. This body of literature connects the two periods for
us, the time from the end of the Hebrew Scriptures to the time of
the events of the New Testament. It provides for us an
understanding of the mindset of the religious community that
came out of Persia who then began to invent their religion. An
invention that was largely under the influence of the Pharisees
after they adopted a Persian dualistic concept. Through these
writings we can see formation of thought in the period represented
was heavily bent towards a fervent spiritual behavioural and belief
pattern. Leaning towards a mystical application of many writings
seemed to be the flavour of the day.
The development of this type of spirituality was quite the
contrast to the steadfast version of the faith Moses received by
Yahweh. What was to be an ideally monotheistic faith of the
ancient Hebrews, became a harmony of Egyptian, Persian, Greek,
and Greco-Roman philosophy, slowly woven together by the great
thinkers of the day. In this pivotal inter-testamental period, the
writers of the theological works began to redefine the terms that
were intended to personify evil and wickedness. Apocalyptic
writers began to invent names for the beings they thought were
responsible for evil and wickedness.

One of the earliest allusions to the Satan, as is mentioned

above of Azazel, came from the Book of Enoch. We also find
reference to the character Satan in the book of Jubilees. Jubilees
utilized the book of Enoch in its development.
The name Mastema had also been used in these texts and
I think it is important to iterate again the connection of these two
names and where they converged to become the name of the
archfiend as it is known to be today, “Satan.”
In “The Old Enemy,” Neil Forsyth tells of the connection of
the names when speaking of the name Mastema;
Since it is etymologically linked to satan, it may

thus carry connotations similar to those that we
discovered for the Satan of the Old Testament.
“Adversary” or “opponent” (satan) here
becomes “enmity” itself (mastema), an abstract
idea corresponding to the abstract form of the
word. Thus the role of Satan as accuser,
prosecutor, and tempter is included within the
more general function of enmity to Israel.56
The long and short of it is this; in the inter-testamental

period the theological assimilation that had been ongoing had
brought the “Jews” to receive doctrines not taught in the
Scriptures. Doctrines that claimed humans had an immortal soul
and a doctrine of demonology, which included Satan. Documents
outlining these ideas incorporating the use of proper names to
identify the concept of evil were written and circulated. The names
Azazel and Mastema were applied to these concepts. The writings
themselves were often composed pseudonymously with the
Hellenized Jewish writer affixing a famous name to the document
intending to increase the credibility of the writing. This body of
intertestamental and early Common Era literature, such as the
56
Forsyth, The Old Enemy; pg 188, Princeton:, Princeton University Press, 1989
268
Apocalyptics, altered the preferential monotheism of Israel and

subsequent Christianity for some time into the future. At one
point, demons were known by the ancients to be both good and
bad but the time came when the religious leaders felt they needed
to refine this belief. As far as Judaism saw it, the demons came to
be known only to do bad. There were no longer any “good” demons
in the faith of the “Jews” but all demons now came from “Satan”
and all of them were bad.
The Interesting History Of The Word Demon
The word demon has some interesting history too. As has been
said, demons at one time throughout the Greek history were
labeled as either good demons or bad demons. The evolving
concepts of demonology basically came to rest on the idea that a
class of supernatural beings called demons, were bad, all of them.
The History of Magic tells us that the concept of intermediary
beings, as in demons, was not necessarily apparent in ancient
Greek philosophy. In the time of Homer, men held discourse with
the gods and needed no demon, spelled “daimon” at the time, to go
to the gods on their behalf or to administer reward or justice on
behalf of the gods. When it was realized there was a chasm
between man and the gods that man could not cross, the Greeks
found a new perspective on the existence of intermediary beings.
Joseph Ennemoser suggests the new perspective was “the best
substitute and aid in filling up the chasm, and, at the same time,
an intermediary being between himself and the highest
intangible.”
In The History of Magic, Ennemoser goes on to tell us that a
popular concept among the philosophers during the time of
Hesiod, was that the souls of men in the golden age appear as
mediators. The writer notes this concept was from foreign origin
and comes from the East where demonology is traced by Plutarch
and others.

The influence of demons in the magic art was,

afterwards, more generally believed in by
philosophers than the Oriental dualism. Even
Pythagoras taught similar doctrines with Hesiod.
From this arose the belief, at a later age, that
Pythagoras or the Pythagoreans, had
communicated with demons, and were able to
exercise them(Porphyr. Vita Pyth.) Empedocles
is said to have been the first to speak of good
and evil demons, even of a species of fall.
(Plutarch. De defectu orac. c. 17. ; Is.c. 26)57
Who was this Empedocles mentioned in the above quote?

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Empedocles
(of Acagras in Sicily, c. 492-432 BC) was a philosopher and poet.
He was one of the most important of the philosophers working
before Socrates (the Presocratics), and a poet of outstanding
ability and of great influence upon later poets such as Lucretius.
Fragments of his work and ideas are all that remains. Gordon
Campbell from the Department of Ancient Classics in the National
University of Ireland, Maynooth tells of Empedocles self-
description in fragment 115 of the Strasbourg fragment;
Empedocles describes himself as a 'daimôn', a

being to whom long life has been granted, but
who has committed the sin of meat-eating and
bloodshed and consequently is punished by
banishment from the company of the immortal
gods.33
57
The History of Magic, Ennemoser, pg 351 volume one
33
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/empedocl.htm#SH5a; The Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, “Empedocles of Acragas” by Gordon Campbell; Department of Ancient
Classics, National University of Ireland, Maynooth
270
Here then is the use of the term demon/daimon, as a good

entity by Empedocles. Empedocles taught that the dead man
properly expiated in his afterlife existence was able to become
active as a daimon and was able to do good. Campbell goes on to
describe what is seen on fragment B. 112. He recognizes how
Empedocles teaches that he now is himself an immortal god.
There are others too numbered among the

daimôns, those who 'at the end ... come among
men on earth as prophets, minstrels, physicians
and leaders, and from these they arise as gods,
highest in honour.’58
We could go on and on looking at references explaining how

demonology, which came to include a “Satan” character, gradually
was formed and evolved over time. How the Persian dualism and
demonology was slowly being adopted by certain “Jews” who came
out of Persia and became part of the Greek then the Roman
Empire. However, that is unnecessary for this work. What is of
interest though is how both the Greek and Roman Empires
contained mirror images of the philosophy of demons in many
ways. The Alexander period was a fulcrum for the demonology
belief system and its migration into all the cultures of the world. Of
course, the Hindus and Egyptians continued to foster their own
parallel demonology, but the Greek Empire impacted the greatest
number of people. Ennemoser writes of the uncertain expressions
of Plato, which spoke of demons with neither bad nor good
qualities.
These uncertain expressions of Plato, however,

formed a rich source of the demon system of
58
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/empedocl.htm#SH5a; The Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, “Empedocles of Acragas” by Gordon Campbell; Department of Ancient
Classics
National University of Ireland, Maynooth

the Alexandrian philosophers. It did not consist,

as in the theology of the Chaldeans, Persian,
and Egyptians, of merely opposite and
antagonistic powers, like the Giants and Titans
leagued against the gods of Olympus, or of the
gods amongst themselves, but of two
conceptions of good and evil existing for
themselves, and transferred as two principles to
beings of equal power. Here we have at once
good and evil spirits with inferior and dependant
beings. The idea of sorcery, and the belief
connected with it, are also later and probably of
foreign origin- partly through the speculations
of philosophers, partly through the residence of
Greeks in Persia and Egypt. Foreign ideas were
now introduced under cover of the names of
native gods, by which the later mythology and
demonology therein contained are to be
explained.59
Greek Philosophy Has A Major Influence On Today.
Why am I placing so much emphasis on the Greek philosophy of

demonology? That is a good question and one quite easily
answered.
The influence the Greek Empire had on religion and
theological views was so far reaching and so profound that almost
every nation in the known world today shows some signs of Greek
thinking. Ennemoser puts it well, as regards the development of
59
The History of Magic, Ennemoser, pg 351,352
272
“spiritual” thought and the work of fusing the nations that was
pursued by Alexander. In his volume of The History of Magic, he
says;
In this respect the age of Alexander the Great is

the most remarkable; conducing toward the
mutual knowledge and fusing of various nations.
Though the world appeared to be falling into
decay and ruin, the spiritual light beamed higher
and higher, and Alexander becomes a guiding
star in the history of human civilization.60
We see that Alexander the Great is credited for much of the

salvation of the world as a man who put forward a certain flavour
of morality and a concrete view of the unseen world. Alexander is
to be credited for the major advances of Greek philosophy and
religious thought into the religion of the Jews and the Christianity
that followed. Next, we can see the opinion that there was a
widespread belief in demons and more importantly, we see the
recognition by Ennemoser that these unseen “demons: were given
powers that equated them with Divinity. This being the case makes
them out to be Gods.
At Christ’s appearance, faith in demons, and

particularly in evil spirits, was not only
generally among the heathen, but also among
the Jews to an incredible extent; and unbounded
powers, as great even as those of the Divinity,
were ascribed to them, which not only were
supposed to influence the mind but also nature
and physical life. Superstition imagined all
60
The History of Magic, Ennemoser, pg 324

possible ways of gaining the favour of these

demons,…61
The Persian concepts had made their way into the religion of
the Jews. These new concepts were undeniably added to Jewish
religion although they were altered somewhat at each transfer
from nation to nation. Had the “Jews” rejected assimilation as
Yahweh had asked them to, they would have maintained a purely
monotheistic faith. The faith of the God of Israel is a faith that is to
be without the acknowledgment of another deity. Especially
because this other “deity” is non-existent. From the Egyptians, the
Indians, the Chaldeans, the Persians, then on to the Greeks and
the Romans, this insidious doctrine of demonology and “Satan”
flourished. The belief in demons and “Satan,” which is not found
in the true faith of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had
successfully made its way into the first century and into a religion
that came to be known as Christianity. In "The Anchor Bible
Dictionary,” we find this about Satan and the associated
demonology being influenced by the Persians:
"To summarize, it is clear that references to

*satan*, either by that name or by a surrogate,
are much more extensive in
apocryphal/pseudepigraphical literature than in
the OT. More than likely, exposure to Persian
religion and its Zoroastrian-based dualism
provided some of the stimulus for the more
pervasive demonology in these Jewish writings."
62
Clearly the advancement of the concocted belief in demons

and “Satan” was fuelled by many writers in the inter-testamental
61
The History of Magic, Ennemoser, pg 340,341
62
http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/history.html
274
period. Writers who were initiated into the mystic principles of

pagan faiths. The body of literature from that period is amazing,
not only in the sheer volume of literature that sprung forth from
that time, but also in the explicit manner that it grants us an inside
view of the ideology, theology, and methodology of the time. We
see through this body of literature how the harmonization of a
Hebrew faith occurred with the philosophy of other nations and
primarily came to imitate much of the Greek philosophy. Another
major piece of literature from this period is the Talmud.
Hellenization of the Jews comes to mind here.
The Talmud contains commentary on other ancient “Jewish”
literature such as the Gemara and the Mishnah. It was codified by
the fifth century CE. That means the rabbis finally had it all
written down affirming it as a legal code. The task of writing down
all the trivial nuances and interpretation of the “Jewish” faith
began about 200 BCE. The Talmud is a compilation of codified
Jewish law that contains stories, anecdotes, parables, and halakah.
The Hebrew word halakah, means to walk. A large part of the
Talmud contains rules a “Jew” is supposed to walk out as he or she
practices the Jewish faith. I am not going to deal with all the
references to a system of demons that are portrayed in the
Talmud. However, the Talmud does go into many stories and has
many allusions to “demons.” That work is completely a product of
the postexilic religious system of Judaism. The man made cult of
Judaism was designed by man and fuelled, in my opinion, by a
need in the wicked heart of man. A need to control other men and
to invent a religious system and a God who met their needs and
desires.
Admittedly, the Talmud does contain many historical and
verifiable facts and information about the period it was written in.
However, the God of the Torah does not approve it as a document
that can be used to design and determine doctrine. Regardless of
what the most devout Jewish scholars say, the Torah itself indicts
any who claim the Talmud is close to or equivalent to the
Scriptures. The Scriptures declare of themselves to be settled in

Heaven forever and that none are to add to or take away from the
words of that book.
How Can We Presume The Doctrine Of Satan Came From

The Hebrew Scriptures?
There is ample evidence that shows the inter-testamental

development of demonology in the period of about 400 BC to 100
AD. That being the case, how can we presume to believe the
concept and doctrine of Satan and demons is a correct concept
that is taught in the Scriptures? The Apocrypha and the New
Testament were not called Scripture by the Messiah. The
“Scriptures” for at least a hundred years after the resurrection of
the Messiah were simply the “Old Testament.” The “Old
Testament” did not receive that title of separation until hundreds
of years after the entire Apostolic community had long been dead.
Before “Christianity” was born, the people of God followed what
the Scriptures taught about the satan/ha sawtawn, not what was
attached to theology by the mystical ideas of the Apocalyptics. It is
well documented that the parent religious system to the
Christianity of the early second century was Judaism. Christianity
is the Greco-Roman offshoot of Judaism that rose up after the
destruction of the Temple in 70 CE when Greco-Roman leaders in
theology began to guide the religious community.
The honesty of a statement in the Encyclopedia Judaica that
informs of the adherence to Persian dualism by post-exilic Jews is
enlightening. Sadly, this honesty, in the face of the insurmountable
pride in an entrenched system of religion designed by man, has
not affected much change back to truth. Even while possessing the
knowledge that Judaism has adopted a false dualistic belief system
and Christianity followed on the heels of that belief, neither the
Jews nor the Christians seem able to extricate themselves from the
destructive heresy that keeps them from being truly monotheistic.
The Encyclopedia Judaica states:
276
"A great change had taken place . . . by the last

centuries B.C.E. In this period the [Jewish]
religion . . . took on many traits of a dualistic
system in which God and the forces of good and
truth were opposed in heaven and on earth by
powerful forces of evil and deceit. This seems
to have been under the influence of Persian
religion."
Now We Are Left To Remove Satan
It is through the philosophers and writers of the late BCE period

that Satan found its way into Jewish literature. This name Satan
was not held by the Ancient Hebrews as a title for a cosmic being.
Once the early CE literature of the philosophers and the Jews
circulated, it was only a matter of process for the word satan and
the term demon to enter into the earliest Christian thinking. That
thinking became concrete and once it was written down, the
cement had set and Christianity, the world’s largest two-God
religion, had for itself a second lesser deity in the form of the
mythological Satan. An inferior God to fight against and to hold up
as a being of malevolence that needed to be defeated in order to
assure the Sovereign God reigned victorious and supreme. Thanks
to poor biblical scholarship and the seductive influence of cultures
such as the Greeks and Romans, Satan was given to Christianity
and Christianity in turn gave itself back to the satan it needed to
survive. Now the largest cult in the world has a common enemy in
Satan and a tool that instills fear into the masses in order to keep
the masses close to the man-made religion. Thereby controlling
those who fail to find out for themselves if what they believe can be
proven from the Scriptures. Now, you and I are left to remove
Satan from our belief system and wander back to a true
monotheism where we can believe there is only one God.

278
CH AP TE R 1 0
What’s The Final Word For Satan
In The New Testament?
What is the power of the written word? Think about that for a
moment. Your spouse or kids say they love you, and that is always
nice to hear, but when they write it in a card your feelings go a
whole lot deeper. The meaning is magnified just by seeing the
words “I love you Mom” in writing. Penned by their own hand, the
very strokes of the pen are imbued with nuances of your loved
one’s character. Seeing some things in writing just means a whole
lot more than to hear them from time to time. Let’s say you share
the card you just received with a friend, telling them why you were
given such a beautiful card but your friend is not a Mom. Should
that friend take the sentiments in your card and cling to them for
themselves? Should another reader who was not the intended
audience believe the message in the card was for them? How much
impact should the card addressed to you have on the lives of
others…others who may even be in your family?
That card might be of great value to you but it is written
only to you. Should you then expect anyone reading to be moved
by the words that were written to a specific audience? Anyone
reading your card two or three hundred years after it was written
would certainly understand it was intended for a specific audience
and they would not make the mistake of declaring, “this card is
sacred and is to be read by all peoples in all times”…saying “it is
words to live by for everyone.” I know the New Testament writings
are more than just a sentimental birthday or Mother’s Day card
but what has happened with these letters in your Bible is little
CHAPTER 10 – What's The Final Word For Satan In The New 279
Testament?
different than your card being read three hundred years after it
was received by you. We would have no trouble showing by the
contents, the structure, and the addressee of the card that it was
meant for you and you alone. It was intended for a specific
audience and others should take information from it with that in
mind. Why do we have such trouble doing the same with the
letters from the Apostles?
The New Testament Doctrine Of Satan Is Contrived
Were it to be left here without addressing the issues I am about to

discuss in the following pages, many would reject all that I have
stated about the authority or lack thereof of the New Testament.
Many would resolve to stand in concrete that the New Testament
is Scripture. However, as with all issues that play into the ideas
that Satan is real, I am not going to stop short of this next very
important step. I plan to be very thorough in showing the New
Testament is not Scripture. Therefore Christianity is mistaken to
extract a doctrine of Satan from those letters. If you are convinced
already that Satan is not a biblical doctrine because you
understand that doctrine cannot come from the writings of the
New Testament, then that’s great. Feel free to move past this
chapter and boldly head towards the final chapters of this book. If
however you are somewhat unclear as to what the NT is and what
the authors intended it to be, then do read on. You are about to see
the most compelling evidence, from the pages of the New
Testament itself that the New Testament is not “Scripture” in the
sense or level of authority that the Old Testament is.
It may be somewhat arduous to explore but this is a good
time to consider something important about each of the letters in
the New Testament. It is often ignored by scholars, but every
single book of the New Testament speaks of itself as a letter. The
internal self-testimony is loud and clear and not one shred of
evidence can be found to show that these writings believe
themselves to be Scripture.
280
If we can find that the New Testament is not authoritative

then we move one huge step closer to the reality of no Satan. For a
few pages now, we will seriously consider if the New Testament is
Scripture or if it is just meaningful letters to various groups of
believers. Today we will look at an unusual source for our
exploration. Instead of listening to what Christians think of their
holiest book or discussing what theologians say about the New
Testament, we will hear what the New Testament says about the
New Testament. What a novel idea. Let’s see what the internal
evidence found in the New Testament says about itself. Let’s go to
the source to see what the New Testament is. For instance, the
suggestion of what the NT is can be gleaned by seeing the book of
“Luke” is written to a man named Theopholis, as is the writing
titled “Acts.” Therefore, both are personal letters, not Scripture.
The letter to the “Romans” is just that, it is a letter addressed to a
group of believers who dwelt in Rome, it is not declaring itself
Scripture. First and Second Corinthians are letters to the saints in
Corinth. It is interesting to see Paul talks in 1st Corinthians chapter
5 verse 9 about a previous “letter” he wrote to them. Paul by no
means is thinking that his letters should ever be called Scripture.
Particularly because he himself referred to the Torah the Psalms
and the Prophets as Scripture.
I wrote unto you in a letter not to company with fornicators:

1Corinthians 5:9
In the New Testament book titled Galatians, we see Paul is

writing a letter to the assemblies in Galatia. In this letter, Paul
talks about numerous issues. A close look at the book reveals that
Paul is concerned with a group of Jews who believe Yeshua is
Messiah and are telling the Galatians they must follow a custom
they call the custom of Moses. The instruction of the Judaizers is
that the custom of Moses must be strictly followed in order for a
convert to become an heir of the promise that came through
Abraham. After his Damascus Road epiphany, Paul knew that the
promise is not inherited by undergoing a liturgical and precise
rabbinical ceremony, which involved ablution, manumission, and
Testament?
circumcision. He was telling the Galatian believers the “promise”

is inherited through acceptance of the Messiah and that the
obedience to the Messiah comes after. Chapter 3 mentions how
some Judaizers taught the Abrahamic promise must be acquired
through performing a physical act like circumcision. This letter
identifies the contrast from the rabbinic modality of inheriting the
promise, to how Yeshua imparts the promise to those who come
into faith in him. Paul was not canceling the Torah or circumcision
as some claim he did in the letter to the Galatians. If he did, he is
then opposed to the Messiah. A Messiah who said in Matthew 5
not one tiniest letter shall pass from the Torah until all is fulfilled.
Seems to be a contradiction there if Paul changed what the Torah
said. If that is the case then parts of the Torah have passed away.
Which of these great leaders is a liar? Paul or Yeshua? If Paul was
in fact canceling the Torah then Yeshua was a liar, if Yeshua was
true in claiming the Torah was not going away, then Paul is a liar
and why do we listen to anything Paul writes?
If we choose to believe that neither Yeshua nor Paul are liars
then it must be that we are misunderstanding one of them. Peter
told us Paul’s epistles are difficult to understand for the one who
has not learned Torah. Therefore, in the letter to Galatians, I
would say Paul is being misunderstood by the vast multitudes of so
called bible scholars, professors, and theologians who would be
considered “unlearned” according to Peter. For an excellent
commentary on Galatians according to its cultural, historical,
linguistic, and social context, Avi Ben Mordechai does a fabulous
job in his book, “Galatians, A Torah-Based Commentary in First
Century Hebraic Context.” Our task for the moment is to
determine if letters such as the letter from Paul to the Galatians
can be elevated to Scripture.
According to what the internal testimony of each writing

displays, we see Galatians, Acts, Romans, and Luke are letters
not Scripture. We will discuss some of the content of these letters
in Volumes 3 and 4 of Imagine There’s No Satan, but what about
the rest of the so-called “New Testament”? Do the other writings in
282
the “Christian Bible” reveal themselves to be Scripture or is there

evidence that they are simply meaningful correspondence? Let’s
consider the findings for the remainder of the “books” of the New
Testament.
Guess who the book titled “Ephesians” is written to?
That’s right; it is a letter to the assembly of believers who gather
together in the city of Ephesus. A city that was three miles off the
west coast of Asia and connected to the chief cities by highways.
Philippians, Colossians, First and Second Thessalonians,
all are letters written to the respective locales and to the groups of
believers residing there. These are all clearly letters and nothing
more, sent to a specific audience addressing a specific need or
issue of that audience. If the fact that Paul wrote a letter to a
specific place addressing specific things means we are all supposed
to treat his writing as Scripture because the Catholic Church
fathers said so, then there has been a lot of picking and choosing
as to what to obey of Paul’s “Scripture.” Paul gave separate
instruction to individuals in his letter for a reason and we can
understand something of value by seeing this individualized
instruction of Paul’s. Yet his valuable instruction can still be
valuable but not be Scripture. Notice in his letter to the Philippian
assembly Paul sends personal messages to be shared with
individuals in that community. This alone ought to indicate that
we are reading instructional and encouraging correspondence and
that those writing it and those hearing it would have never held it
to the status of Scripture.
Philippians 4:1-3 KJV

1 Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and
crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.
2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same
mind in the Lord.
3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which
laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other
my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
Testament?
The appearance of individual instruction in the letters from

Paul is evidence that Paul isn’t writing a document he would ever
expect to be considered Scripture, but is just writing a letter to a
group of friends who happen to be believers. We no more take the
instruction to individual persons contained in Paul’s letters as
intended to be universal instruction than we are to take the
Gospels or other letters of Paul as Scripture for all People for all
time. Otherwise, we should be washing the feet of other believers
in the manner of the Messiah, or greeting each other with a holy
kiss upon coming together as some Christian sects do. Should we
then interpret Paul’s words as a commandment for all people for
all time? If Paul wanted all the assemblies in all the towns for all
time to abide by his letters, why then is the Letter to Colosse the
only letter with an instruction to share that letter with another
town? Paul tells the Colossians they are to read his letter and they
are to read the letter he sent to the Laodiceans and the Laodiceans
are to read the letter to Colossae. His clear message is in no way
telling them to ensure his letter is read to all the other believers
that are around the globe as has become the practice with the New
Testament.
Colossians 4:16
And when this letter is read among you, cause that it be read also in
the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle
from Laodicea.
When Paul wanted a letter shared with groups other than

who the letter was addressed to, he was sure to include those
instructions as we see in Colossians. By the way, have any of the
“New Testament” Christian churches you have been to heeded
Paul’s command to read the letter to the Laodiceans? Or is Paul’s
command to the New Testament churches something that can be
ignored? If they truly believed it was Scripture then shouldn’t they
adhere to Paul’s injunction to read the letter to the Laodiceans?
Here are a few proofs from some of the Apostolic writings to show
they are intended by the author to be “letters.”
284
Luke was a letter written to a man named Theopholis

because the writer thought it would be good to pass on the account
of the Messiah as he saw it.
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all

things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent
Theophilus, Luke 1:3 KJV
The book of Acts is believed to be written by Luke, the

alleged writer of the Gospel of Luke. It was a further account of the
activities that transpired after the death, resurrection, and
ascension of Christ.
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus

began both to do and teach, Acts 1:1 KJV
Romans was a letter written to a group of believers residing

in Rome. Intending to inform and encourage those who were
embroiled in one of the most perilous situations.
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to

you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:7 KJV
The letter to the Corinthians bears the internal testimony

of correspondence sent to a decadent and troubled believing
community. The area of Corinth was riddled with difficult issues
due to the heavy engagement in pagan religions. Pagan religious
practices continued by those who were doing the faith of the
Messiah. The second letter Paul writes refers to the first document
that he had sent to them as a letter.
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are

sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every
place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and
ours: 1 Corinthians 1:2 KJV
Testament?
For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I
did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry,
though it were but for a season. 2 Corinthians 7:8 KJV
The letter to the Galatians is said to be a letter in the first

two verses where Paul identifies himself as the writer and then
identifies who is to read this letter. Again, there is no internal
evidence for this piece of correspondence being called Scripture.
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,

and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) And all the
brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Galatians 1:1-2 KJV
Ephesians is written to the believers in Ephesus and again

it is a letter addressing the concerns and needs that Paul may have
been made aware of. Nonetheless, we find no reason inherent in
the letter to classify it as Scripture.
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints

which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 1:1 KJV
The letter to the Philippians is another clear letter

directed to a particular locale in Paul’s ministry area. As it is
correspondence aimed at a group needing some assistance and
clarification in their developing body of believers, there is no need
to grace it with the honour of being called Scripture.
Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in
Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Philippians 1:1 KJV
Colossae was a city in the Roman Empire lying in lesser Asia

near Laodicea and Hieropolis. The letter Paul wrote to the
believers there is yet again another piece of personal
correspondence that would not have been assumed to be Scripture
286
by Paul, the Colossians, or any who might have heard Paul’s letter
over the next hundred years or so.
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus

our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are
at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ.
Colossians 1:1-2 KJV
Letters, Letters, And More Letters…
So far, we see that Luke, Acts, Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians are all letters as
indicated in each document. Before we see about the rest of the
writings in the “New Testament” I want to explain to you how I
feel about Paul’s letters in general and in fact the entire collection
of documents in the Apostolic Testimony, which is considered the
“New Testament” in common thought. I am not saying that the
“New Testament” is to be chucked out. I am not saying that it is
not to be read by followers of Yeshua, nor am I saying that the
message contained in the pages of the “New Testament” is one that
opposes the message contained in the “Old Testament,” as is
propagated by many who don’t understand the New Testament
from a biblical Hebraic perspective.
If one can come to understand the writings called the New
Testament in a manner more in line with the understanding of a
first century hearer and writer, it becomes clear that the “New
Testament” is a valuable witness. If this famed document testifies
accurately it becomes irreplaceable in assisting one in knowing
that the Messiah has indeed come and was indeed resurrected. We
also learn the first century believers had the understanding that
Yeshua is planning to return from being seated in Heaven to
completely restore the Kingdom to Israel. The “New Testament”
does not initiate a brand new covenant with a brand new people.
Once again I’ll repeat that it is a compilation of letters that testify
to the works of the Messiah and aid believers with various
Testament?
problems in that time. You see, Paul taught multitudes not only
how to walk out their faith in accordance with the desire of
Yahweh as found in the Hebrew Scriptures but Paul also showed
those who were willing to see that Yeshua was Messiah, through
the Hebrew Scriptures.
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by

the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
Acts 18:28 KJV
The Messiah can be found abundantly in the “Old

Testament,” and you can find a catalogue of the prophecies about
the Messiah in many places, one such place is in Lee Strobel’s
book, “The Case for Christ.” Although they are arguable to some,
there you are going to see an inventory of over 300 prophecies that
the Messiah fulfilled in His day. In the pre-Christ period of the
closing BCE centuries and the early first century CE the
anticipation of a soon coming Messiah was palpable. And Paul, as
well as many other “Jewish” rabbis, would be well aware of where
passages about the Messiah could be found in the “Old
Testament.” In fact, the rabbinic sages of the past centuries have
an understanding that the Messiah was expected to come in the
time period Christ did come, but they collectively missed Him
because the salvation of Yah, Yeshua, did not come in the package
that they expected Him to come in. That said, we must remember
the New Testament is not to be used as a manual for doctrine;
especially a doctrine of Satan.
Changing A Belief System Takes A Lot Of Truth Seeking
Starting to explore your belief system so you can begin to see there
might not be a “Satan” or that the “New Testament” might not be
Scripture is a pretty big shift, even in the face of convincing
evidence. A shift of that magnitude can happen but it is difficult, as
has been shown in many of the major paradigm shifts in the
collective thought of culture over the centuries. Shifts like when
288
the Roman Catholic Church was convinced that the Earth was the
center of the universe. I am referring to a time when most of the
civilized world believed with such certainty that the earth is the
center of the universe. This belief was so embedded in culture that
there was a threat to imprison anyone who claimed differently.
Imagine the uproar when a man claimed that it is not the Earth
but the Sun that is the center of our universe.
Many who were exposed to the “new” idea were too
entrenched in their previous version of the Earth’s position in the
universe to seriously consider changing. Ultimately though, it is
obvious that the correct understanding prevailed. People began
exploring their beliefs. And truth, as always, had a way of rising to
the top and pushing out error as long as there was a herald to
proclaim the truth without fear.
Like those who had an entrenched belief in the position of
the Earth in the universe, so too were the Pharisaical thinkers of
the first century CE entrenched in the well-developed form of
Judaism they lived, taught, and defended as true and correct. And
so too are many believers in Satan who will not let go of their evil
second God, even when they are shown he is a god in their mind.
They are almost hopelessly entrenched in their comfortable error.
We can turn to German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer who
said it best. If there is truth to be shared it will likely meet with
some ridicule and resistance before it becomes “self evident.”
“All truth passes through three stages. First,
it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently
opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-
evident.”
You and I have access to knowledge and ideas like never

before in the history of man. I am thankfully not the only person to
try to communicate the message that there is no Satan and that the
“New Testament” is not Scripture. Ultimately, it is up to the
individual to examine the claims while setting feelings aside in
order to come to the truth of these matters. I trust that your
pursuit of the truth goes on long after you set this book down. For
Testament?
now though, I am asking you simply to ask yourself the question,

“Is it possible that the New Testament is not supposed to be called
Scripture?” If one can honestly entertain that question, then he or
she must come to terms with what the “New Testament” is. If not
Scripture, then what is it and why do we have it available to us
today? There are so many varied versions and interpretations of
the New Testament. In the Eastern versions of the New Testament
you will find verses that are not in the KJV and find portions of
verses that are in the KJV missing from those same Eastern
versions. If I am suggesting that the New Testament we have today
has inaccuracies and has been poorly understood how then can I
believe the “New Testament” should be utilized by today’s searcher
of the truth? That is an excellent question.
Should We Use the New Testament The Way It Was

Meant To Be Used?
I am convinced that none of the alleged writers of the “New

Testament” would condone its use for constructing doctrine.
Therefore, I would say it must be seen through different glasses
than have typically been used. Can we read this body of literature
through a corrected prescription, absent of any astigmatic
perception? Are we able to look past our centuries old grid and
read it afresh through proper cultural and historical context? We
ought to strive to consider the correct social and linguistic context
while still throwing in a huge dash of realization that not one word
of the so-called “New Testament” can go against or change any
word, concept, precept, or doctrine of the “Old Testament” or else
the writer is a false prophet and should not be heard or heeded.
We must also strive to add to that an admission that if the
words of the New Testament seem to contradict the Hebrew
Scriptures then the issue is that we do not understand the message
that was intended. No one is given the authority to change the
Torah. Paul and Yeshua should not be seen to be at odds with each
other on issues and the New Testament does not have the
290
authority to override or abrogate that which is found in the Old.

One must come to a firm resolve that if the “New Testament”
seems to contradict the “Old Testament” in any way shape or form,
the God of the Universe is a liar. Yeshua told us that the Scripture
cannot be broken and Yahweh told us that His word is settled in
Heaven forever. I must remind you again that not one jot or tittle
shall pass from the Hebrew Scriptures….ever. If any words do
“pass” then Yeshua lied to us too and we have no hope.
Our objective should be to use the writings in the New
Testament in the same manner and according to the example of
the thousands of believers in Messiah who were all over the known
world in the first century. There has yet to be even one copy of an
original “New Testament” writing that proves to be from the first
century brought to light in present day scholarship.
It is probable the writers of the books of the New Testament
were men who had received a report from an eyewitness. They
were wise enough to write it down because of the significance of
the report.
In the first century there were no newspapers or books, radio
or T.V. The common modes of disseminating information were to
tell others or in some cases to write letters about the amazing news
and deliver them to people that were connected to you in another
town. Word of mouth was a valuable and predominant mode of
sharing information. Although it is arguable, there is a great deal
of evidence to suggest some of the Apostolic writings were not
even penned until the second century and at that they weren’t
written by those whose names appear in the greeting of the letter.
What may have occurred is that friends of eyewitness would
have seen the snowball effect of Yeshua’s life and recognized the
profound impact it was having on society. Kings and Dignitaries of
the Biblical period had their court recorders make written records
about decisions and occurrences in the life of the ruler but Yeshua
would not have had this as He came as the son of an insignificant
Jewish couple. After many years had passed since the apostles
walked with Yeshua, those who felt that a record of the life and
ministry of Yeshua was important enough to be recorded
Testament?
committed to recording as much as they could remember of what

had been told them by the eyewitness of Yeshua’s life, death, and
resurrection.
Initially the death of Yeshua would have been hardly notable
enough in the Roman Empire to be recorded. True, the rulers were
concerned about a revolt from those who were close to the
situation but revolts were common in the turbulent dictatorial
environment. Moreover, the regularity with which the Romans
killed alleged seditionists and malefactors was notable. Rome was
the ones who were writing the history books at the time so
according to their perspective this man Yeshua was at most just
another common criminal. But those who would become the
writers of many of the books of the New Testament saw the impact
of the Messiah on the world around them, they did as many good
history recorders did. They began to piece together the events of
the past from accounts of people who had been closest to them and
from some who had been directly involved. Eventually they came
up with what is today called The Gospels; an account of important
events in the first century. And although the account was not
written immediately after the incidents it describes took place, The
Gospels and some of the Apostolic writings were valuable
witnesses to those events. Valuable and surprisingly accurate.
Even today there are numerous historical records that we
receive as accurate but were written by authors not present at the
event or the time of the event. These authors were only able to talk
to individuals who may have been present during the period being
recorded. Or perhaps the historians put together a semi-
comprehensive documentation of what occurred in the period of
interest by using other documents that testify to the period.
Therefore, in practicality, the record of Yeshua and His ministry
was most likely a reasonably well compiled account that was
gleaned from the memories and thoughts of numerous individuals.
Individuals who were alive many years after the Messiah walked
the earth and possibly even into the second century. Often times,
one author would put together his thoughts and information about
a person or situation by using another writer’s work as a resource.
292
This understanding lends itself well to accepting that the Gospels

specifically, may not be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John, but very well may be transmitted oral accounts of what did
transpire according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The
accounts were eventually written down some years after the events
took place. Although this is just a theory, it could have happened
this way or in a manner very similar……Don’t believe me though,
study it to show yourself approved!
Just because a document records the fulfillment of a
prophecy in a specific manner, or because a document uses lots
and lots of Hebrew Scripture, are not reasons to elevate a letter to
the position of Scripture. Nor should one imbue the writings in a
document with the same authority and intent as the Holy
Scriptures used in the first century just because a group of men
operating in self-imposed spiritual authority under the Roman
government say the writings are Scripture.
I understand how much there is to digest on this topic and
arguments will continue for some time to come, so for now let’s
consider the primary witness. The best witness is the internal
testimony of the remainder of the writings in the “New
Testament.” If we accept the testimony these writings have of
themselves, we will see they are certainly not Scripture.
Do The Rest Of The Writings Call Themselves Scripture?
First and Second Thessalonians are not only letters to those

dwelling in Thessalonica, but the opening greeting of these
writings indicates that the thoughts and sentiments contained in
the letters includes thoughts from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy.
Paul asks that this epistle, a letter, be read to all the followers of
Messiah who are in the town;
1Thessalonians 5:27 KJV

I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy
brethren.
Testament?
And again in Second Thessalonians, Paul calls his writings letters;
2Thessalonians 3:17
The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in
every letter: so I write.
First and Second Timothy are clearly letters to Timothy

to encourage and counsel him in situations he was encountering in
the location of his ministry. Much if not all of the Apostolic
writings, including all of Paul’s writings, are able to teach us some
valuable lessons today. Neither of the letters to Timothy was
intended to be or to become Scripture two to three hundred years
later. What we are seeing throughout the documents of the “New
Testament” is that they are excellent aids to express some
wonderful biblical concepts. Concepts that have always been part
of the faith in Yahweh. I think it was said quite well by a friend of
mine a few years ago that the “New Testament” is probably the
best commentary on the Torah you could find. In truth, it seems
we are able to use much of the “New Testament” as commentary
on the Hebrew Scriptures. These writings further illuminate how
Messiah wanted us to understand God and walk out faith in Him.
The book titled Titus is of course a personal letter to Titus. Again
we can see that correspondence addressed to an individual would
never be classified as Scripture by any of the Apostles. So why does
Christianity call it Scripture?
Titus 1:4 KJV

To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and
peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
The book titled Philemon is also a letter but it is addressed

to three persons specifically and also to the group of believers
meeting in a house. The group of believers is the called-out
assembly and has come to be called the “Church” in English. The
Greek word for church, ecclesia, means a called out assembly so
we are slightly missing the intent of this Greek word when we see
it as a group of people meeting in a large building that is
294
purchased and maintained through the donation of finances by the

attendees of the building. The “church” in the first century was a
group of believers who did not fit into the religious culture of the
day because they recognized the value of the resurrected Messiah
as well as they kept the commands of God. They therefore met in
homes on the Sabbath to learn how to serve the Messiah through
keeping the commands.
Philemon 1:1-2 KJV

Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto
Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellow labourer,
And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellow soldier,
and to the church in thy house:
How could a group of early, Common Era, religious

politicians, decide to call a letter Scripture when that letter is so
clearly intended for a specific group of people addressing a specific
situation? That decision is quite a wonder. Here one might argue
that the writings contained in the Old Testament were often
directed to a specific group of people such as those writings aimed
at the nation of Israel. That argument though won’t hold up for
long when we consider that the Messiah Himself affirmed the
entire Old Testament as Scripture by His repeated use of it and His
testimony of it never being abolished or broken.
I agree with the principal that one must have “faith” to follow
after the Messiah but faith need not insult logic on such a
profound level as to say we should call a personal letter “Scripture”
just because it has been called “Scripture” since the second, third,
or fourth century. This letter to a man named Philemon is about
Onesimus, a slave who has abandoned his master and fled to
Rome. Having either embezzled his master's goods, or robbed him,
Onesimus is in line for a beating by his master but Paul asks the
master of the slave to have mercy and receive him back. Asking
Philemon as a brother in Christ to forego the punishment for a
fleeing slave. Also notice the number of personal salutations listed
at the end of the letter. A clear indication this is personal mail not
Scripture.
Testament?
There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus;

Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers. Philemon
1:23-24 KJV
The fact that the letter to Philemon closes with salutations to

numerous individual people strongly indicates that it was never
intended to be treated as Scripture by a general body of any
religion.
Hebrews is the next book in the present order of the

Athanasius Canon. This book is closer to an actual “book” that
could be considered Scripture than are most of the other
documents in the “New Testament.” T0 whom was Hebrews
written? Well, the title tells us. The group of people it was written
to was to the Hebrews, who may have been a group of Hebrew
believers who resided in Rome. This possibility is suggested from
Clement of Rome quoting the letter extensively in his writings and
from the names of those who received greetings at the end of the
letter. Thus, this letter was intended for a specific group of people,
just as most of the other epistles in the “New Testament.” Clement
of Rome is a first century religious leader who himself has written
Epistles, such as the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, also
called First Clement. Even at the close of the first century when
Clement was active in the religious community, this letter of
Hebrews, which may or may not be attributed to Paul the apostle,
was not referred to as “Scripture.” The Jamieson, Fausset, and
Brown Commentary speaks of this letter. In their comments we
see the view that this letter to the Hebrews was equal to the other
epistles but it was not considered Scripture. “Scripture” they note,
was a title reserved strictly for the Old Testament.
Hebrews - CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP.—

Clement of Rome, at the end of the first century
(A.D), copiously uses it, adopting its words just
296
as he does those of the other books of the New

Testament; not indeed giving to either the term
"Scripture," which he reserves for the Old
Testament (the canon of the New Testament not
yet having been formally established), but
certainly not ranking it below the other New
Testament acknowledged Epistles. As our
Epistle claims authority63
So we see Clement did not call the book of Hebrews or any of

the other apostolic writings “Scripture.” And we have heard Justin
Martyr from around 150 AD call these letters the memoirs of the
apostles. As the comments above state, even at the end of the first
century, only the Hebrew canon was thought of as Scripture. The
letter to the Hebrews, like all the other writings in the “New
Testament” made the jump from an inspired letter that was to be
used to guide believers in their faith walk in certain areas and to
encourage Godly lifestyle and lifestyle choices; to being considered
“Scripture.” It may be considered Scripture according to early
Catholic men, but there is no internal evidence in the writing that
ascribes the position of “Scripture” to this letter; even though it is
a profound piece of writing which so clearly explicates the
greatness of Messiah as the Great High Priest.
Looking at the letter of James, titled “James” in the New

Testament, we see a general epistle which may be one of the few
apostolic documents which could honestly be considered
Scripture. This could be a consideration because the epistle of
James is written to the scattered tribes of Jacob who had been
ousted from Jerusalem and Israel during times of persecution. The
“scatterings” occurred during the Assyrian, and the Babylonian
and Persian period, and then continued to occur during the period
of Alexander. These dispersions led to “Jewish” people becoming
63
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and
Explanatory on the Whole Bible – (emphasis added)
Testament?
believers in Messiah while in their dispersion, which is known as

the Diaspora. It is not certain to which group James was writing in
particular, but it is generally believed there was an Eastern and a
Western dispersion, as is noted by Albert Barnes.
There were two great “dispersions;” the

Eastern and the Western. The first had its origin
about the time when the ten tribes were carried
away to Assyria, and in the time of the
Babylonian captivity. In consequence of these
events, and of the fact that large numbers of the
Jews went to Babylon, and other Eastern
countries, for purposes of travel, commerce,
etc., there were many Jews in the East in the
times of the apostles. The other was the
Western “dispersion,” which commenced about
the time of Alexander the Great, and which was
promoted by various causes, until there were
large numbers of Jews in Egypt and along
Northern Africa, in Asia Minor, in Greece
proper, and even in Rome. To which of these
classes this Epistle was directed is not known;
but most probably the writer had particular
reference to those in the East.64
No matter which group James was writing to, some may

suggest that in considering the broad audience he intended, one
could very well fit this type of a letter into the category of being
called “Scripture.” There is no other Apostolic writing that
outrightly addresses itself to all who are Israelite. Here we have
James, likely the half brother of Messiah, writing a letter for
64
298
people all over the Middle East to read. John Gill adds insight to
understanding this letter in his commentary. Gill says;
This epistle is called "general,” because not

written to any particular person, as the epistles
to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are; nor to any
particular churches, as the epistles to the
Romans, Corinthians, &c. but to the believing
Jews in general, wherever they were. The
author of it is James; and whereas there were
two of this name, who were the apostles of
Christ; some have thought it was written by one,
and some by another:
Although this letter is actually a General Epistle, which

differs from Paul’s Epistles written to a specific individual or
geographical group, it would still not have been sent abroad with
the intention of saying it is Scripture. It is not possible that James
would have sent out his letter of encouragement to believers who
had been scattered, and expected that when it showed up at the
door of the house-church or synagogue, those receiving it would
take it as anything more than an inspired letter. It was then and is
now a letter to address some issues, give support, and bolster faith
through encouraging the body of believers. James wanted the
dispersed believers to know a few things that would help them
survive in the harsh environment away from the cradle of their
faith.
James 1:1-3 KJV James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
The letter from James is another letter that was inspired by

God, because it showed love and patience to the struggling
Testament?
believers out on the fringes, so to speak. Any writing that teaches

and shows true love, true patience, and true kindness, has to be
inspired by God. Because He is loving, patient, and kind and those
things must emanate from Him. Even if a murderous, devil
worshipping, God hating, criminal wrote a letter that showed
kindness to a person, that letter would contain inspiration and
mirror the goodness of God. In the contents of James’ epistle, the
dispersion will receive some God inspired encouragement,
admonishment, and instruction. But does this make James’
writing “Scripture?” OR, did it become “Scripture” at a point in
history much removed in every way from the first century
assembly of believers? It can be seen that the latter is the case and
the historian Eusebius notes it as the first Catholic epistle,
meaning the first letter. I emphasize that Eusebius called it, “a
letter” and he realized it is intended for a less specific audience
than Paul’s letters.
How could James’ work be considered Scripture when there
is no mention of the man until well after the apostolic period? This
means first century congregations were not making use of James’
letter as a common church document. Again we see that a letter
from a man to a specific group does not possess the inherent
authority to be called Scripture and there was no divine or
Apostolic authority to deem it Scripture by the truest Apostles of
the first century. According to Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown,
Origen is the first to even mention the letter from James by name;
The first mention of James' Epistle by name

occurs early in the third century, in ORIGEN65
Why then is “James” considered “Scripture?” It is not

because the earliest hearers, readers, and users of it considered it
“Scripture,” but because of an idea born in the first few hundred
years of the Common Era that was accepted and evolved to
become a concrete belief. The idea that the “Christians” should
65
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and
Explanatory on the Whole Bible
300
have a different set of writings to use as Scripture than that which

had been used by the Jews, the Messiah, the Apostles, and all the
first century believers, was an idea brought about by men who
claimed to speak on behalf of God. Once again, it was a decision
made by a powerful men’s club bent on designing a religion that
they demanded should be absent of anything Jewish. Sadly they
have neglected to understand that the Messiah is Jewish. And it is
fair to say the festivals He kept were Jewish, the diet He kept is
Jewish, and the Sabbath He kept and was resurrected on is Jewish.
Of course, the Torah calls these things the Lord’s but most of us
have come to think that all the Old Testament commands are
“Jewish.” Leviticus 23 clears up whose festivals they are when it
says that those feasts long thought by the world to belong to the
Jews, are in fact God’s festivals.
Leviticus 23:4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy
convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons
A Few More Letters To Explore
I have tried to keep this exercise short. However, I didn’t want to

leave you with simple statements that flatly claim a letter is not
Scripture when a little bit of info on some of the “disciples’” letters
might help clarify the point. What is left to look at in the “New
Testament?” We can take a quick look at 1st and 2nd Peter; 1st, 2nd
and 3rd John; Jude; and Revelation. By peeking at those writings
we will be able to determine that they contain no internal evidence
for being called Scripture.
The books of 1st and 2nd Peter can be looked at together for
our purposes. They both contain a different message but for the
most part are intended to encourage a group of believers who are
once again called the “scattered.” Peter is inspired to send
encouragement and instruction to the believers in the dispersion
who are living in certain cities.
Testament?
1Peter 1:1 KJV Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers

scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
Bithynia,
If a biblical literalist reads this letter they will see it clearly is not written
to them; that is unless they are from one of the cities mentioned in the
opening statement. The letter was written to people in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Like James, the letter from Peter
could be considered to be Scripture more so than Paul’s letters
should be. This is so because 1st and 2nd Peter are intended for a
broad audience and therefore they have the potential to be seen as
an instructional piece of literature which bares some
characteristics of previously received Hebrew Scriptures. However,
Peter tells the hearer in chapter two of 2nd Peter that no
“Scripture” has been composed simply by the private thoughts of
the writer.
2Peter 1:20 KJV Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the

scripture is of any private interpretation.
In saying this, Peter is acknowledging the Hebrew Scriptures

as documents that came from Yahweh through men and were
written down for all to have, for all time. Seeing that Peter is
calling the Hebrew Bible “Scripture” in his writing, it would be
insane for him to equate, or ever think anyone reading his letter
would equate his own words of encouragement and instruction
with Scripture. Peter’s letters are not believed by the hearers to be
“powerful and able to divide joint and marrow,” as the Hebrew
Scriptures are said to be. Nor are they called or thought to be the
“living oracles,” as is the “Old Testament.” Along with the bulk of
the “New Testament,” Peter’s words are not; “good for doctrine,
reproof, correction, and training in righteousness,” as the “Old
Testament” is said to be by Peter. Although Peter’s writings,
preserved in the Christian New Testament are beneficial and seem
to be inspired by God, they are not “Scripture.” It is only the Old
Testament that has the full characteristics of Holy Scripture. The
letter to the Hebrews testifies to those characteristics.
302
Hebrews 4:12 KJV For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and
sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing
asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
What document is the writer of Hebrews referring to when

speaking of the “word of God”? Would Peter have claimed his
letters are in the same category as the Scriptures that the writer of
Hebrews is speaking of? Would Peter or any hearer in the first
century call his letter “the word of God”? or say his words are
“sharper than a two-edged sword?” It is indisputable that neither
Peter, nor any first century hearer of the letter to the Hebrew,
would have thought these letters; these words penned in an effort
to encourage a specific group, would be anything more than just
meaningful letter. These writings were not Scripture then nor are
they Scripture today.
The Epistles of John are labeled 1, 2, and 3. To say they

are anything other than letters to specific groups is to ignore the
intent of the author and to impose an audience upon the letters
that was not anticipated by the writer of the letters. To be fair, the
letter of 1st John does not contain an addressee, however it is clear
from the text and context that it is intended for a specific audience.
The 2nd and 3rd epistles are addressed specifically. The recipients
of John’s epistles did not misunderstand the intention of the
writer. This is so in that the recipients are simply people he has the
privilege of encouraging through correspondence. His writing was
intended to meet some specific needs of the intended audience.
Because the first Epistle has not identified an addressee, I will
simply state there is little dispute as to the fact it is known to be an
Epistle. A letter written to a specific group just like the second and
third epistles, which have a specific recipient in mind. Second
John has a particular lady and her children as the recipient of the
letter, as is seen in verse one.
Testament?
2John 1:1 KJV The elder unto the elect lady and her children,
whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that
have known the truth;
A later greeting to her sister in the text of the letter testifies to

the fact that the “elect lady” is an actual lady and not the “Church”
as some claim. Commentators recognize this and also note that to
use the language “elect lady” and the attached syntax would be
highly unusual for a reference to the “church.” There is little
dispute that a real lady is intended by John as is mentioned in
Gill’s commentary below.
…the elect lady is the person he writes unto; by

whom is designed not the church of Christ,
since such a way of speaking is unusual; and
besides, he speaks of coming to see her face to
face, and of the children of her elect sister: but
some particular person, some rich, as well as
gracious woman of John's acquaintance; and
these words, "elect lady,”…66
In the third epistle, John is clearly addressing a close friend

named Gaius.
3John 1:1 KJV The elder unto the well beloved Gaius, whom I love in
the truth.
One could scarcely expect that the writer, the reader, or the
first century believers would have considered as Scripture a letter
directed to an individual. Why should it be classified as Holy
Scripture on the testimony of power-hungry, religious, political
leaders of the second to fourth centuries? I am willing to concede
at the very least one might consider the Gospels, Revelation, and
66
304
Acts possibly as Scripture, because there are understood to be

words of Christ contained in them. It is even reported by the
Apostle who wrote the letter to the Hebrews, that we were given
the word of prophecy, meaning Scripture, in the past by the Holy
Prophets of Old but that in the present day we receive the word by
the Messiah;
Hebrews 1:1-2 KJV God, who at sundry times and in divers

manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath
appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
These statements at best leave room to add Yeshua’s words, if

we have received them accurately, to the Scriptures. However,
even to do such would not be correct because if they were to have
been considered to be Scripture, then surely the God of the
Universe would have made that addition to the formal first century
Hebrew Canon long before the mid to late second century when
formation of a New Testament canon first was considered. As for
the words that the apostles are said to have written, there is no
mention of any of the apostles having been spoken to directly as a
way of Yahweh transmitting Scripture, so surely John knew he was
not ever going to have his words “canonized” as Scripture. Based
on the words of the writer of Hebrews, we see that no other
writer’s words should be considered “Scripture.” And definitely the
1st, 2nd, and 3rd letters of John ought not to be called equal to the
Hebrew Scriptures.
The book of Jude is another letter to a group of believers

who are at risk of becoming apostate due to the infiltration in their
ranks of certain false apostles and heresy teachers. Jude is
addressing a specific group with a specific issue that needs to be
focused on. Jude recognized the peril the community he was
writing to could find themselves in if they didn’t take heed and
protect themselves. Could “Jude” be Scripture due to the nature of
the warning that is still relevant today for so many communities of
believers? Perhaps it could, but then it would have been elevated
Testament?
from a personal letter to a Holy Writ. Unless Jude is a prophet

from the past, who is being referred to by the writer of Hebrews,
then it is highly improbable that any first century believer would
have considered this personal letter, hand delivered to a “beloved”
congregation of notably small size, as being words on par with the
Prophets and seen as “Scripture.”
Jude says it himself that he really needed to write to them to
encourage them to “contend for the faith.” This faith by the way,
would have been defined according to what the Old Testament
said was faith. When Jude wrote his letter the only “Bible”
available was the Old Testament. This document is a letter of
encouragement from Jude and no one receiving it would have
given one thought to calling the letter “Scripture.” Jude is referring
to the faith once delivered to the saints that is taught in the Old
Testament. Of course it was not the “Old Testament” to Jude
rather, the Scriptures. He upholds the Scriptures through his
words but unquestionably, Jude does not suggest his words should
be considered Holy Scripture and neither should we.
Jude 1:1-3 KJV Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to
them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ,
and called:
Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye
should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints.
Concluding Thoughts On The New Testament
As we near the end of this thorough discussion on what the New

Testament is and what it is not, I will close with these remarks.
On careful examination we can see there is no evidence in

the New Testament that identifies the New Testament as Holy
Scripture. Nor is there any viable testimony from the late first
306
century scholars and early second century writers that identifies

the New Testament as Holy Scripture. Although written by men
who heard testimonies about the first century happenings, this
compilation of letters was not thought to be Scripture by the early
believers and was definitely not intended to be Scripture by the
writers. A letter, such as is found in the New Testament, may well
have been written with Godly inspiration but inspiration from God
has been the impetus for many profound Christian documents
throughout history. Therefore, inspired writings do not
automatically become Scripture and stating a letter is inspired
does not make a good argument for that letter to be called
Scripture.
There is a vast amount of evidence in the New Testament

testifying to the fact that the Old Testament is Holy Scripture and
is the only source for designing and defining doctrine. Upon
searching the entire Old Testament one cannot conclude that a
literal Satan is a doctrine in the Old Testament… Therefore; if
Christianity derives a doctrine of Satan from the New Testament,
Christianity is either extracting a doctrine that cannot be
considered biblical or Christianity is misrepresenting what is being
said in the letters of the New Testament. This misrepresentation
has been based on many presuppositions that stem from first and
second century mystical Greek thought. The only way to determine
if Christianity has correctly deduced who and what satan is, is to
refresh our understanding of the satan concept. This is possible by
applying the same Hebraic methods of biblical scholarship to the
concept as would have been employed by Yeshua, Paul, and each
of the Disciples of Christ in the first century. All in all, however
one reads the New Testament; it is certain that the doctrine of a
literal Satan cannot and should not be established by the words
contained in those letters. Letters which have been protected by
men who practically worship the New Testament instead of
understanding it the way the original hearers might have
understood it. Although Christianity continues to propagate the
idea of a second lesser god in their Satanology, it seems we can
Testament?
thank the Greeks for our Satan concept of today. That said, you
can look forward to seeing the Greek connections to this concept in
the next chapter. As for determining if the book of Revelation is
Scripture or not, please be patient, I will get to that shortly. For
now let’s move to explore how demonology was taught us by the
Greeks.
308
CH AP TE R 1 1
Demons, A Greek Gift To
Christianity
DEMON/DAIMON/DAEMON
We have already spoken briefly of the use of the word “demon.”

The word “demon” was at one time a word that referenced to
malevolent and benevolent spirit beings. It was believed that this
word referred to a supernatural variety of spirit beings that had
the ability to act in kindness on the physical human world and to
affect the individual human mind. Demons were also thought to
affect nature in ways such as causing rain to fall on crops that
needed moisture or causing herds and flocks to thrive. The
malevolence of these beings was understood as a negative force
that was exerted on any or all of the areas where a “good” or
benevolent demon could exercise their powers.
Most people are not aware that demons were not always
thought to be only evil. In the ancient world there were two forms
of demons. They were know as eudemons and kakodemons;
meaning good and evil respectively. History is well documented to
show how demons were not believed to be exclusively evil, as is
thought today. One writer (quoted below) describes the concept of
demons as was common in the Greek period. As you read the
information below take note of the second last sentence that
indicates it was thought that a person was in a good state if they
had a demon. This idea was prolific in the very nations that had
the greatest effect on Judaism and Christianity.
CHAPTER 11 – Demons, A Greek Gift To Christianity 309

The Greek translation of the Septuagint, made

for the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, and
the usage of daimon in the New Testament's
original Greek text, caused the Greek word to
be applied to a Judeo-Christian spirit by the
early 2nd century AD. Then in late antiquity,
pagan conceptions and exorcisms, part of the
cultural atmosphere, became Christian beliefs
and exorcism rituals. The transposition has
recently been documented in detail, in North
Africa, by Maureen Tilley.
For Greeks and Romans, daemons ("replete with

knowledge,” "divine power,” "fate" or "god")
were not necessarily evil. Socrates claimed to
have a daimonion, a small daemon that warned
him against mistakes but never told him what to
do or coerced him into following it. He claimed
that his daimon exhibited greater accuracy than
any of the forms of divination practised at the
time. The Hellenistic Greeks divided daemons
into good and evil categories: eudaemons (also
called kalodaemons) and kakodaemons,
respectively. Eudaemons resembled the
Abrahamic idea of the guardian angel; they
watched over mortals to help keep them out of
trouble. (Thus eudaemonia, originally the state
of having a eudaemon, came to mean "well-
being" or "happiness.”) A comparable Roman
310
genius accompanied a person or protected and

haunted a place (genius loci).67
The daemon, which is often spelled daimon in the

Septuagint, came to be the “demon” of postexilic Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. Demons were beings of either good or bad
influence. As Platonic thought came to receive more and more
acceptance, the idea of anything bad coming from God became
more and more unacceptable. The demon came to be known as the
harbinger of evil and eventually all attributes of good were
removed from the concept of demons early in the Common Era.
Seeing the mindset that came through in the inter-testamental
writings makes it easy to see how the idea of demons and a “Satan”
was to be passed along to Christianity and then enhanced by the
Hellenized and Greek theologians of a state religion in the first
century.
Was Satan Revealed By Progressive Revelation?
Some claim that the teaching and concept of demons came about
in the “New Testament” because of what they call, “progressive
revelation.” This claim is made in an attempt to neutralize the
clear biblical and history of the meaning of the terms. Quite
clearly, the history and meaning reveal demonology was a post-
biblical fabrication. Progressive revelation is not a sound method
to introduce brand new doctrines that are not found in or proven
by the Hebrew Scriptures. Some seem to think that through
progressive revelation, God reveals information that has not been
available in the realm of humanity before this time. This is thought
of as a dispensation for a specific time when humanity is prepared
to receive it. The thinking is that Yahweh gives unique secrets to
certain people and they then are to share this information with the
67
From entry titled “daemon” at the Answers .com website
http://www.answers.com/topic/daemon-mythology

unenlightened in order to convince them of God’s revealed plan.

Overall, the predominant theory behind “progressive revelation” is
one that has been found in Gnosticism for thousands of years.
When considering that concept a more balanced description
of progressive revelation may be entertained. Perhaps one might
see it is a valuable tool used to bring a more clear understanding of
an already established or prophesied event or concept. Revealing
what might have been meant by an older statement in the
Scriptures that was difficult to understand when it was spoken.
Perhaps progressive revelation is the correct term for the Hebrew
people being told they would go into captivity by Yahweh’s
prophet, then, hundreds of years later they did end up in captivity.
The captivity was a fulfillment of prophecy. Perhaps that is
progressive revelation. It is only at the point the people realize
they are in captivity that the historical statement of their eventual
captivity makes sense. Progressively revealed! This would be
similar to the Hebrew people being told the Messiah will visit
them, and then in the first century AD, Yeshua did appear. Now
the historical promise makes sense only when the factor of
progressive revelation comes into play. Nevertheless, one thing
“progressive revelation” is not, is that it is not reliable to reveal a
concept that does not exist in the Hebrew Scriptures. As the word
“revelation” has the meaning of “unveiling” it is possible that a
message of importance that has been somewhat obscured to the
human intellect for a time, is “unveiled” in order to allow the
human intellect to understand and apply it to life. Puzzle pieces
that were previously unrecognized do not magically appear from
God; they simply come into view and are considered. The doctrine
of Satan cannot be found in the Hebrew Scriptures so then it
cannot be unveiled in the Apostolic Writings. God does not
introduce any new doctrines through the writings of the Apostles.
And if it appears He has introduced something new, such as the
involvement of a demonic force in humanity, then we are
misunderstanding the New Testament writings.
If someone claims to have a doctrine that is not found in the
Hebrew Scriptures, then they are fabricating a doctrine on a false
312
basis. If the doctrine is not found when the Hebrew Scriptures are
looked at critically to determine if the progressing concept actually
appears, then someone has contrived a man-made doctrine. To say
this more simply, one could say; the Hebrew Scriptures are good
for doctrine and the New Testament, the Apocalyptic literature,
the Apocrypha, the Talmud, or any historical literature, are not
good for doctrine. Paul tells this to Timothy and in so doing, the
maxim is implied by Paul’s statement that all Scripture, meaning
the Old Testament, is good for doctrine. That maxim is; the
Hebrew Scriptures are for doctrine and are the only Holy
documents used by Paul for teaching and preaching. Even Paul
showed the doubters that Yeshua was the Messiah from the
Scriptures. This is mentioned in one of Luke’s memoirs called the
book of Acts
Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and he did so

publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
The Scriptures must contain everything; that is every

doctrine, which is spoken of in the Gospels and Letters. The
implication by Paul that doctrine does not come from the Gospels
and Letters is strong. Paul’s stand is simple He teaches it is every
concept that can be found taught in the “Old Testament,” which
fully prepares a man of God. That is why Paul was able to show
from the “Scriptures” that Yeshua was the Messiah. Paul was a
man who was “fully prepared,” that is thoroughly furnished,
because of his intimacy with and understanding of the “Old
Testament.” In 2nd Timothy Paul clearly states the Old Testament
is the document to be used by a man of God.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for

doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
good works.
2Timothy 3:16-17 KJV

Those who state it is possible for brand new doctrine to be

revealed as a result of reading the “New Testament” have then
suggested Paul is a liar. Perhaps they suggest Paul is a liar in their
ignorance and are simply misunderstanding the construction of
the Gospels and Letters. There are a growing number of scholars
who so ashamedly misunderstand Paul because of their
disconnection to Hebraic manners, customs, and thinking that
they decry Paul, considering him to be one who spoke against the
Messiah on certain issues. All the while, these same scholars fail to
reconcile every word of the apostolic testimony with the words of
the Scriptures. Or perhaps those who believe they have been given
a brand new doctrine or that new doctrine was given in the New
Testament are simply receiving revelation from their own mind.
Undoubtedly a reservoir that is full of false ideas handed down by
lying church fathers and other pseudo-messianic leaders and
teachers. The prophet Jeremiah spoke about the people of God
being victimized in a sense because of the lies that were handed
down to their “fathers.”
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of

affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the
earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity,
and things wherein there is no profit.
Jeremiah 16:19 KJV
This is often the case for the one who teaches a doctrine such
as the existence of “Satan” and “demons” and then profess it as
progressive revelation, revealed in the “New Testament.” After all,
as was thoroughly displayed in Satan Christianity’s Other God
Volume 1, a supernatural Satan cannot be found in the Old
Testament. The existence of evil has been explained via numerous
inventive descriptions and definitions. These definitions are far
from original concepts because they have come about through an
unbroken chain of mystic and pagan philosophies. Many thoughts
and ideas have flowed from the tributary system of pagan nations
into the collection pond of Judaism and Christianity. Although the
acceptance of the cosmic dualistic theology has not been passed
314
down with the specific intent to deceive the masses, the acceptance
of a false dualistic philosophy has occurred. Regardless of the
intent the deception flourishes in Christianity and in culture. It is
probable that due to a lack in maintaining purity in the Faith of
Israel as was asked of the Children of God by their God, the
doorway to self-deception was opened. Just as Adam and Eve
opened the doorway to self–deception in the beginning when they
decided to alter the word and command of the Creator, so too has
Christianity and Judaism been filled with deceptive teachings
because they have changed the word of the Almighty. Once the
doorway is open, it seems that other false thoughts and ideas are
able to take on life. The life that deception takes on in man is as if
spores had settled on the proverbial flower garden of the mind and
grew into an unsightly fungus. The flower is still present but as the
spores multiply, the “flower” becomes less and less recognizable as
what it was intended to be.
In The History of Magic, Ennemoser makes note of the
divergent philosophies that came to thrive in Christianity as a
result of state run religions amalgamating heathen gods to unify
the masses and thus giving the appearance that the pagan gods
were disappearing, when they in fact were only being incorporated
into fewer “gods.”
All the different descriptions of the existence

and influence of evil spirits, as they have come
down to us, have been modified by Christianity.
The devil is altogether Jewish, Christian,
heathen, idolatrous and spectral. As the heathen
gods disappeared Christianity stooped to
dualism, and the gnostic philosophy
endeavoured to establish the universal principal
of good and evil.68
68
Ennemoser, “The History of Magic,” pg132 - University Book,1970

All the influences and input from sources as far back as the
Egyptian and Persian encounters had made their inroads into the
Christian religion. The Christian religion, although today believed
to be a religion that in some ways depicts the theology of the
Messiah Yeshua, is a woeful representation of what the Biblical
Faith in the God of the Bible is supposed to encompass.
The Roman system of governance became the Universal
Church, which means Catholic. Roman and Greek philosophies of
faith were almost identical and as the Romans led the world,
including Jerusalem, their religion flowed into all aspects of
mainstream society. Much of the syncretism of the Christian faith
was further cemented by the Greek thinking Romans. Rome would
never have admitted they thought like Greeks as far as religion and
philosophy were concerned, but historical records clearly show
although Rome was the captor of the Greeks, Rome was seduced
by the ways of the captive and became very much like Greece in
thought and philosophy. As the Roman writer Horace observed;
“Captive Greece captivated her conqueror.”
False ideas were fed to the masses and propagation of half-

truths, if there exists such an animal, and ideas adopted from
pagan cultures fuelled the development of a Christianity polarized
from the Hebraic origin and style it was intended to be. The
evolution of Christianity included cosmic demonology, which was
a tapestry of falsities that worked its way through a handful of
centuries where the concept was completed by Christianity. The
distinguished physician who held the chair at the University of
Bonn, Germany in 1819 and was an esteemed lecturer on
pathology and medico-philosophical subjects can be heard again
on the subject as it pertains to the “Christian” attitude which
brought a winding, unbiblical, pagan philosophy to a stage of
completeness within the faith of the Christians; Joseph
Ennemoser writes;
We will now see how the belief in spirits and in sorcery

gradually shaped and completed itself in Christianity, till
316
it finally issued in superstition and unbelief in the

witch-period of the Middle ages.
In the early period of Christianity, men made little
difference between the natural and the supernatural.
Everything extraordinary was to them magical, or
everything miraculous was a demoniac or theistic event.
The laws of nature were not understood, and almost
everything unusual, therefore, belonged to the sphere
of miracle, which everyone explained according to his
own ideas. The chief opposition of the heathen,
however, originates in the fact that the Christians
represented the heathen gods altogether as evil spirits,
who occasioned trouble and crime, and indeed, asserted
that the devil, enraged that his kingdom was overthrown
by Christ, endeavoured to revenge himself by stirring
up all the demon hosts and all the heathendom in
hostility to it. See Munschers History of Dogmas;
Meyer’s Historia diaboli, seu comment. De diaboli
malorumque spirituum existential,” etc. Tubingen
1780.69
Beliefs About Satan and What He Can Do

Some of the beliefs in the first century and beyond that were
propagated about demons were beliefs such as;
 Demons are the founders of idolatry and because of their
pride allow themselves to be worshipped as gods.
 Miracles proceed from devils for the authentication of
idolatry
 Oracles of newly styled poetic language and structure,
originates from them and is done with the intention to
mock men.
69
Ennemoser, The History of Magic; pg 138-139

 The magical arts are maintained by them.

 They work to do harm and injury to men in every possible
way.
 They are responsible for public calamities, diseases, failure
of crops, famines, poverties, and all manner of disastrous
accidents.
 They are inexorably inducing humans to sin and unbelief.
 They are so well organized that they can act on the body and
the soul
 They hate the Christians the most because “Christians”
refuse to flatter their pride.
 A demon or legion of demons was appointed to each soul at
birth.
The above brief list was gleaned from concepts that were
espoused by early Christian Giants in the Universal church. These
ideas became commonplace in the culture that grew up under
Roman rule and embraced the Roman religion. Tatian, Tertullian,
Justin, and Clement of Alexandria, all convincingly delivered their
ideas, which were taken from Greek concepts and then expanded
on. Shrouding their teachings in the piety, which comes with
knowing much Scripture, they were able to adequately comfort
themselves and the masses by propagating descriptions and mystic
ideas that did not come from the earliest Apostles or from the Holy
Scriptures.
Hebrew Scripture Is Interpreted By Greek Philosophers
These men, known as the Early Church Fathers, seduced

multitudes by their intellect and influence. They were so revered as
having authority that they decided to extract meanings from the
Gospels and Letters that were not the original intent of the first
Apostles. The fact that they had long since been divorced from
understanding the Faith of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
from an ancient Hebrew perspective is undisputable. This
separation from Hebraic thought gave room for them to re-
318
interpret most of the writings that were said to be handed down

from the apostles. Not to mention the manipulation of the
interpretation of much of the Hebrew Scriptures, this
manipulation was done in the name of Rome by Hellenized
theologians. Rome was a religious governing body, believed to
have ecclesiastical authority. The belief in the authority of Rome
was not because of a prophecy exalting Rome to such a lofty
position with unchallenged authority. No such statement from
God existed. Scripture had not been written so as to give Rome the
authority of God to be able to alter Scripture or make decisions as
to how Scripture should be interpreted and applied. The only
authority Rome received was the authority she gave herself.
Brilliant Non-Hebraic Leaders Complicated The

Common Demonology
The concept of daimons, which represented a pagan idea of good

and bad spirits, was adopted by Rome. Alternatively, perhaps it is
better said that it flowed into Roman thought after the Grecians
were defeated and revised Greek demonology was developed by
the great thinkers of early Roman-Christian rule. The fact that
there is no other god beside Yahweh strongly indicates “daimons”
had no actual force or physical attributes. This fact was clouded by
the belief in some other force. As an idea though, the belief in
“daimons” took flight and was not kept to a small esoteric idea of a
few. Due to the deep desire to cast “God” as only good and to find
another force that could be cast as the originator of evil, the pagan
belief in “demons” continued to migrate virtually unabated, deep
into the thinking of those present in the first century. The
Apocalyptics and the Hellenized Jews, who carried the authority as
a result of them being the intellectual segment of society, were
appointed positions of influence by the Greek government.
As the Empire switched to the hands of the Roman
government, the “leaders’” influence was proven. The religious

leaders were so convinced themselves of the demonological origins

of evil and wickedness that they continued to turn a
misunderstood idea of “bad” into a cleverly written anthology of
fiction. The fictitious story of who caused evil was accepted as fact
in a very broad way. The idea of demons, as the unseen spirit bad
guys, was all but unrecognizable as once being the pagan
philosophy that touted daimons were both good and bad.
Today in the English language, we have the word “demons”
from the ancient word daimon, which became daemon in Latin.
The two vowels of daemon, “ae” are a diphthong. A diphthong is
simply two vowels together but producing only the one vowel
sound. As the diphthong “ae” was dropped, we were left with the
single vowel “e” in the word and today whether one writes,
daimons, daemons, or demons, the word means the same things.
No matter what religion constructs demons to be, in reality,
according to the early use of the concept, a daimon was simply a
good or bad experience. On a website dedicated to explaining the
etymology of words, we are told of the beginnings of the words
demon and daemon.
Demon and daemon were once used

interchangeably. The former came to English
from medieval Latin, while the latter was from
classical Latin. The earliest use appears to have
been in the phrase daemon of Socrates, which
was his "attendant, ministering, or indwelling
spirit; genius.” That was in the late 14th
century. It was a short time later that the term
demon came to refer to "an evil spirit" by
influence of its usage in various versions of the
Bible. The Greek form was used to translate
Hebrew words for "lords, idols" and "hairy ones
(satyrs).” Wycliffe translated it from Greek to
English, fiend or devil. This is how the evil
320
connotation arose. By the late 16th century, the

general supernatural meaning was being
distinguished with the spelling daemon, while
the evil meaning remained with demon. Today
daemon can mean "a supernatural being of a
nature intermediate between that of gods and
men" or "a guiding spirit.”70
Can A Demon Give You A Blessing?
If a Greek citizen of the early BC era had something good happen,

they would believe a eudaimon caused it. Perhaps it was as simple
as being given a beautiful piece of fabric to make an article of
clothing. In a case such as that, it was thought a good demon was
responsible for it. Today we can see such an occurrence as just a
pleasant blessing that came with being alive and existing in God’s
world.
Conversely, if a person burned himself or herself on a hot
stone stove, they would attribute the negative experience to a
kakodaimon, which is a bad demon. The daimon was not so much
seen as a tangible entity, but as an incident that happened to
someone. As far as the Greeks considered it, it was not expressly a
“being” trying to oppose “God” and trying to harm man. A demon
could be an entity that brought good for a person too. Even amid
the highly syncretistic religion of Judaism and the intense power
of assimilation, which I suppose should itself be called a demon,
many true Hebraic thinkers were able to use the terms borrowed
from the Greco-Roman culture and apply the metaphorical sense
to them. Understanding the term metaphorically as was taught by
the many philosophers, the Hebraic thinker connected the word
“demon” to a person’s behaviour or attributes, not to an
autonomous creature bent on destruction. For instance; when of
the Messiah it is said, “He has a devil!” the speaker, in all
70
From Take Our Word For It, http://www.takeourword.com/TOW129/page2.html

probability does not mean the man is inhabited by a supernatural

spirit being, but is likely meaning the man is speaking lies and
deceit, or is believed to be crazy. In subsequent volumes we will
discuss the personification and metaphorical uses of the words
devil, demons, and satan, which are found in the “New
Testament.” For the moment, it is imperative that we recognize the
discernable differences between those people who maintained a
Greek concept of devils and daimons (demons) and those with the
Hebrew understanding of devils and daimons (demons).
Although correctly perceived by many as a descriptive phrase
identifying a behaviour or an attribute of a person, often when a
Greek thinker spoke of someone as “having a demon or devil” they
believed the person to actually have a spiritual entity within or
about them. They quite possibly accepted the mystical concept of
the term. When a Hebrew thinker spoke or heard of someone
having a demon or a devil, he or she recognized the statement was
to be heard as a metaphor. If the reference to a person having a
devil were connected to a physical or mental malady, the Hebraic
hearer would understand the speaker was enlisting the method of
personification that was common to the day. This next point is
important for us to understand. The hearer then understood
that the malady, be it physical or spiritual, was being
referred to as a “devil.” The meaning contained therein
was that whatever illness had befallen a subject was an
unwanted illness and was that which went against
soundness of mind and/or soundness of body. For the
Hebrews who were attempting to stay true to the faith of Israel as
was handed down to Moses, they did not reject the cultural use of
terminology borrowed from a Greek system. Rather they
endeavoured to understand and use it in accord with a
monotheistic faith that did not teach the existence of any other
“God-like” being. They therefore, managed to make use of the
language of the Greco-Roman culture but limit the meaning of it in
their use and thought, to mean what it truly meant based on their
understanding of the spiritual world. To the Hebraic thinker the
spiritual world consisted of the Creator and only His agents.
322
When I Say Demon Does It Always Mean Demon?
Is it possible for two people groups to use a word in two different

ways but still live in the same culture? Could the Greeks and
Romans have understood the term “demon” to mean an evil spirit
with a discernable personality while the Hebrews for the most part
understood “demon” to refer metaphorically to a behaviour or
attribute of a person? I think so. An example might be seen in
using the word “God.” When a Christian sits down with a Muslim,
they may begin a conversation about their respective faiths. Both
are descended from Abraham, both believe they are practicing a
true and correct expression of faith in God. As they dialogue, both
the Christian and the Muslim are using the word “God” in their
discussions. But are they both meaning the same thing? Generally
speaking, the Christian is referring to the creator of the Universe
who sent His son “Jesus” to die for the sins of the world. Their God
is called Yahweh in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Christian believes
that admission of this act of benevolence by “God” and subsequent
submission to God by attending a Bible believing church on
Sunday, along with keeping the Christmas and Easter festivals, is
part of serving “God.”
Meanwhile in the same conversation, the Muslim uses the
word God to refer to Allah. To the Muslim, this Allah was the one
who sent and inspired the prophet Mohammed in the 7th Century
CE. The prophet Mohammed is believed by Muslims to be the last
prophet of God. As the Muslim individual uses the word “God,” he
or she is recognizing it to be referring to a Creator who asks them
to follow the teaching of the prophet Mohammed and to pray five
times a day at the prescribed times, in the prescribed manner, with
the prescribed words. The “God” which the Muslim has in mind
when he speaks of his faith is one who asks that Thursday at
sundown to Friday at sundown be set aside as the Muslim “Holy
Day.” In our example both of the parties are using the same word
and both have diametrically opposed views. The use of the word
“God” by a Muslim means something different from the meaning

and character of that contained in the Christian use of the word

“God.”… Same word, different understanding. It is clear we can
have two different cultures co-existing, using the same word, yet
both meaning drastically different things. Therefore, yes, it is
possible to use a word in any culture and have it hold unique
connotation for separate groups or individuals.
The connotation a word holds is typically based on the
following factors. It is based on what the user has been taught to
believe the word means; and on what the user has decided for him
or her self what the word means. The factors are often amplified
when a user of a term decides to investigate the original meaning
and intention of the word or term, and then try to apply it more
correctly in a culture that has already fixed solidly its application
of the word.
To many Christians the word “God” is believed to be the
name of the Creator. For many, that then means to say “God-
damit” is considered to use “the Lord’s name in vain.” If saying
“God-damit” is in fact taking the Creator’s name in vain, then it
should be easy to determine that the Creator’s name is in fact
“God.” Well, putting it as simply as I can, the name of the Creator
is not “God.” If we believe the Scriptures, which are said to be
“God’s Words,” then we are taught that the Creator gave His name
to Moses at the burning bush. At that time and as it is written in
the Hebrew through the entire Scripture, His name is Yahweh. I
won’t try to tell you that you have to say “Yode Hay Vav Hay”
every time you say the name of the Creator, you may want to try
Yehovah, or Yahweh, as I spoke of in Volume One of Satan
Christianity’s Other God. However, the word “God” is definitely
not the name of the Creator. “God” is a title more than anything,
and is a long way from being classified as the English counterpart
for the Hebrew name of Yahweh. Yahweh is God. In short, “God”
is not the name of the Creator Yahweh who is found in the
Scriptures and “God” is not the name of the Muslim God “Allah.”
I will say though, the Christian who is engaged in dialogue
with the Muslim, may be comfortable with the Muslim using the
word “God” while discussing faith, but dare I say that when the
324
word “Allah” is used, a good many Christian folk already believe

that the false God of the Muslim is actually a demon who has
deceived them? Still today, many adhere to the Neo-Platonic
concept that teaches that a heathen nation’s Gods are the demons
of their nation. It may be that Allah is nothing according to the
Scriptures, and therefore, like all “demons” and “devils,” Allah is
completely impotent and non-existent.
The origin of “demons” has somewhat of a mysterious trail
and is difficult to concretely determine the precise etymology in
every culture the term has been used in. Below I provide excerpts
(rather lengthy) from an article that sheds some more light on the
development of the word demon.
The New Testament's

Demons/Daemones/Daimones (The Pre-Christian
Origins of)
Hornblower on Daimones:
"daimon. Etymologically the term daimon means

'divider' or 'alloter'; from Homer onwards it is used
mainly in the sense of operator of more or less
unexpected, and intrusive, events in human life. In
Homer and other early authors, gods, even
Olympians, could be referred to as daimones...
… A lucky, fortunate person was eudaimon (with a
good daimon), an unlucky one was kakodaimon (with
a bad daimon, from the 5th century BCE).
Plato used all the earlier meanings of the term and

introduced a new one...he describes guardian-
daimones who accompany man during his life and
after his death function as prosecutor or
advocate...Completely new is Plato's concept of
daimones as beings intermediate between god and

men. This notion was adopted by all subsequent

demonologies. A pupil of Plato, Xenocrates, argued
for the existence of good and evil daimones…
…. They[demons] now acquired the status of (good)
daimones (see angels). All three solutions were
gratefully adopted by Christian theologians: the
angels from their biblical heritage took over the
positive functions of good and beneficent
intermediaries; all daimones, now revealing the true
nature of the pagan gods, were interpreted as both
the embodiment and the cause of evil and sin against
the will of God."71
Ferguson on Demons/Daimones:
"The word daimon ('demon") underwent important

changes in meaning. In general, it referred to a
power that accompanies persons and dispenses
destiny. In Homer it is used of impersonal power or
of the gods collectively and indefinitely ("the
divine") as the dispenser of individual events. Hesiod
classified rational beings as gods, demons, heroes,
and people; by demons, he meant men of the golden
age translated to blissful immortal life. His
classification prepared the way for demons to be
considered lesser divinities (cf. Acts 17:18) or
heavenly intermediaries between the gods and
human beings. Socrates referred to a demon that
warned him against certain actions (Plato, Apology
71
(p.426, "daimon," Simon Hornblower & Antony Spawforth,
Editors. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Third Edition. Oxford &
New York, Oxford University Press, 1996, ISBN 0-19-866172-X
hdbk)
326
31D, 40A), thus giving to the demon a function

almost like the conscience...
Xenocrates, Plato's student, systemized demonology.

He and later philosophers listed three classes of
demons: permanently disincarnate beings, souls of
the deceased, and the soul "in" or intelligence
accompanying us. He ascribed human passions to
them and made the distinction that some demons
were good and some bad. From this came the idea
that each person has two demons, one good and one
bad.
By the fourth century BC, the word was deteriorating

into use only for unlucky happenings. Since one
avoided putting the blame for evil on the gods, they
were attributed to the demons.
… Plutarch [50-120 CE] most developed the idea.

He and Apuleius [born ca. 123 CE] provide us with
the developed demonology of early Christian times.
Demonic forces were everywhere and were
constantly affecting life.…
… The admission that the gods of polytheism were
"demons" played into the hands of Christian
apologists. Also, to the demons could be transferred
everything that philosophy regarded as unfitting in
the gods. The apologists' claim that pagan religion
was inspired by demons, who had a gross enjoyment
of animal sacrifices, corresponded to the later Greek
philosophical view that attributed the sacrifices of
popular religion to the demons but reserved a
rational worship for the immaterial gods (see
Porphyry and Iamblichus).

Pre-Christian Judaism had already begun to take over

the word demon in that sense of intermediate evil
beings which is so evident in the Christian gospels.
Belief in demon possession of individuals was
widespread and led to the practice of exorcism to
expel demons- by pagans, Jews, and Christians."72
Demons Weren’t Always Bad
To recap the above information, I would like to draw your

attention to a few points made in the article. We are shown that
from Homer the Gods could be referred to as demons. Plato used
all the previous meanings of the term and introduced that these
demons function as prosecutors or advocates after a person dies.
Plato still maintained the concept that the demons were either
good or bad. Subsequent demonologies adopted Plato’s philosophy
of demons being intermediaries between god and men. Then a
student of Plato’s, Xenocrates, systemized the demonology
defining three classes of demons. It was believed that a person had
two demon spirits to guide them, a good and a bad, but we saw
that by the fourth century BC the word began to be used only in
reference to unlucky happenings. After Xenocrates, Plutarch
carried the idea of good and evil demons being present in the life
of each person to new levels and then in the early 2nd Century,
Apuleius played a major part in developing the Christian
demonology that spiraled out of control. To those influential
theologians, demons were literally present everywhere. Pre-
Christian Judaism readily took over the word as a term to depict
an evil intermediary being and then the word entered Christianity.
From what we have learned so far, we see the word “demon”
came to be understood by the mystically minded “Christians” as a
72
(pp.220-221, Everett Ferguson. Backgrounds of Early
Christianity. 2nd Edition, William B. Eerdmans Publishing
company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, [1987], 1993, ISBN 0-8028-
0669-4 pbk)72
328
term for a malevolent being. A being once perfect that had fallen
from Heaven in a rebellion that was led by “Satan.” As was stated
above, the thoughts of Plato on demons was adopted by all
subsequent demonologies, including Christianity. The
“demon” was then to become a core belief in the minds and
practice of the more Gnostic variety of thinkers of the first century
CE and beyond. According to the evolved belief, this “Satan” or his
demons were able to manifest themselves in many forms and in
many behaviours. To be demonized meant to some that you were
under the influence of a real spirit being who was led by the “Evil
One,” Satan. The form and figure of these demons was diverse.
Graphic Images of Satan Tell Their Own Inconsistent

Tale
Interestingly, the diverse appearance and form of the supposed

prince of demons could in fact be a testimony not that he is a spirit
with an identifiable form, but to the fact that he is a character born
in the minds of men and not existing in reality at all. “Satan,” as
portrayed in art throughout history has a common theme but is
conspicuously absent of a single concrete depiction. The graphic
images of said Satan or a particular demon are generally
combinations of attributes and characteristics which are believed
to be contained in many of the gods of the pagan or heathen
nations. The god Pan for instance, seems to lend some imagery to
the construction of a Satan character. Pan is the Greek god who
watches over shepherds and their flocks. He has the hindquarters,
legs, and horns of a goat. Satan and demons are often cast in the
same manner as a satyr or Pan. We see a satyr being spoken of in
the book of Isaiah, this satyr would be a man-goat image
constructed with the hands of the pagan worshipper. Which of us
is not familiar with the common image of “Satan” as a horned
creature? Many of us surely have been exposed to images of the
supposed Lord of Darkness as having hoofs instead of feet. In The
Epic History of Good and Evil the writer provides insight into the

Pan-like fabriction of those exhorted by Isaiah in chapter 8 of

Isaiah. Here are some comments from that article;
In Isaiah, 8: 21, regarded as exilic or later,

the reference is to the desolate site of
Babylon; where repulsive creatures and
dancing se'irim are to abide. The conception
is evidently that of hairy goat-like creatures,
not unlike the satyr or Pan of Greek myth.
Some variations of the rabic jinn are also
represented as having something along the
lines of the same form (Wellhausen,
Heidentum, pp. 151-152). This
representation is a parallel reflected in
Isaiah 34: 14, also exilic or postexilic, in
which the sa'ir cries “to his fellow,” in Edom,
which has become a waste inhabited by
wolves and by the night monster, the literal
translation amounting to a "Night-hag.”
Traces of ancient demon worship are found
by the passage Leviticus 17: 7, which forbids
sacrifice to the se'irim, here mentioned as
the objects of worship. 73
The testimony we receive from the abundance of inconsistent

images that portray a being believed to be Satan, express to us that
he is not a real being. Even some of the visions of the Scriptures
where “Satan” is said to be seen, provide little by way of
description for this character. Does he have horns, is he red, is he a
beast, or a dragon, or a sea creature like Leviathan? What about
his teeth, does he have incisors that are capable of tearing flesh off
73
The Epic History of Good and Evil, found at
330
of a human or does he have a nice smile so better to deceive you

with my dear? How does he smell, if he smelt of sulfur then he
would not be able to go undetected, if he smelt of spring flowers
then he now has a good attribute. Is he shaped like a snake or a
celestial body such as a star, as would be inferred by believing him
to be the “bright morning star?” Just as one child’s imaginary
friend is apt to “look” different from another child’s imaginary
friend yet neither really exist, so too do the depictions of this
imagined character vary greatly, thus maintaining the attributes of
something that is not really existing.
What Does Satan Look Like?
Satan is portrayed to humanity in ever changing and numerous

graphic images. The diversity of the images is notable, the varied
forms “Satan” has taken on through history as is depicted by the
images which have been catalogued is not coincidental. Either
these varied pictures are all true to some extent and represent the
“Satan” creature’s ability to morph like some kind of “shape
shifter,” or there is no truth to his being a real entity. All the
images of Satan are just many different depictions of many
different imaginations that are based on imagery borrowed from
ancient mythological creatures such as Pan. These graphic
depictions can only be mental fabrications with no real model to
base them on. So too is “Satan” himself a mental fabrication.
The medieval period has been the most profound period of
artistic depictions of what it is believed “Satan” looked like. The
graphic images played a huge part in the conciousness of the
citizens throughout that period and forward to establishing a belief
that “satan” was a concrete being with a concrete form. In the book
The Devil, by Amelia Wilson, we are given an illuminating tour of
the history of the Devil and the images that were developed to
express what he looked like. As for the horned version of the
“wicked one,” Wilson tells us that the horned God may well be the
oldest deity reconized by humankind. Just like the fabrications of
creative pagans and superstitious Christians of the past, the

demons of the present day and of the New Testament period were
nothing and in fact did not exist. Although every culture put
images to their concepts of their evil god, the truth of the matter is
that the heathen nations each had their own Gods to worship, but
that doesn’t make them real. The Scripture teaches that these are
non-existent, powerless fabrications of men’s minds and were
often made into statues and idols by the hands of men. It is these
“Gods” who were known as diamons by the Greeks.
Although not specifically good or bad, they were believed to
be “spirit energies” as is told by Elaine Pagels in her book, The
Origin of Satan. Pagels tells of the born again Justin having a
reversal of belief as it pertains to the Gods of Greece and Rome.
Justin began seeing the panopoly of Greek gods such as Appollo,
Aphrodite, and Zeus, as “foul daimones.” Justin used to believe in
the gods of other cultures as competing deities who were daimons
that resembled the God of the Christians in many ways. But he
came to renounce that any good was found in them and that all the
gods of others were not in any way good but were to be seen as
“demons.” Pagels accounts the tranformation of thought and
writes of the Christians rejecting the concept of “good spirit
energies” and concluding they were evil demons.
By the time the Christian movement had

swept across the Western world, our
language would reflect that reversed
perception, the Greek term daimones, “spirit
energies,” would become in English, demons.
74
Many Are Trapped By Their Belief In A Lie
The lack of “demons” in the Hebrew Scriptures was changed by the

Apocalyptic thinkers and the Christian theologians. Through their
input Satan has become a phenomenon of Christendom. Demons
74
The Origin of Satan, Elaine Pagels page 120, Vintage Books 1996
332
were now given legs so to speak, and because of the development

and dissemination of the complex demonologies that taught of
“real” demons, they became real for many of the citizens of the
first century and are still real for many of the citizens of the
present day. If you are told demons are real long enough, then I
guess they become real, that is, real to you. What is believed by the
mind cannot easily be disproved by facts, truth, and logic. One
who is convinced of a belief in their mind is trapped by their own
will to believe the lie that they see as truth.
In the New Testament writings, we will see times when
demons or some derivative of the word is being used in different
situations and different manners. In some of these cases the user
is doing so because they believe in demons, and in other cases the
user is using the term from an ancient Hebraic perspective to
indicate a lie or a sickness or an adverse social or governing group.
In our forthcoming survey of the Gospels and Apostolic Letters
(Volumes 3 and 4) we will look at many cases of the use of the
word demon or its derivative.
For the person who is caught up in battles against demons
where he or she is continually casting out and cutting off the forces
of the enemy, I would suggest he or she begins by dealing with
their own “demons.” Those would be the “demons” a
psychotherapist would label as such when referring to the inner
turmoil and issues you might have that are adverse to healthy
emotional and psychological growth. These demons are the only
demons that you and many should consider fighting. Fighting
“demons” is a battle you can’t win. Fighting an opponent that
doesn’t exist is futile. You have to know your enemy to defeat him
and in the case of Satan and demons; you cannot know that which
does not exist. We can no more fight Santa Clause, The Tooth
Fairy, or the Easter Bunny for the nasty effect they have had on
children wanting more presents at Christmas, hoping for money to
arrive under their pillow, or consuming far too many chocolate
bunnies during the seasonal festivities of Easter, than you can fight
Satan and the demons. In the same way as it would be foolish to
make fairytale characters responsible for childhood behaviours, it

is foolish to make demons responsible for the evil choices of man.

The meaning wrapped up in the term “demons” simply depicts the
evil actions of men and is used to explain the bad that occurs in
men’s lives.
Demons, as evil “spirit energies,” were never shown in

Scripture to be a cosmic force able to engage in and interact in the
lives of humanity or affect nature in any way. The propensity to
believe “demons” are affecting the life of a person is a belief that
was introduced by the ancient pagan nations of the world. This
belief grew to be a lie of epic proportions because of the influence
of great thinkers throughout history. The profound lack of
personal study to see what the Scriptures teach and a lack of
research into how history has affected theology is a negative factor
that has kept people from learning the truth about Satan. The
truth that Satan and demons don’t exist seems impossible to
millions. Millions who accept without proof that there is another
God in the universe who is able to perform supernatural acts that
only Yahweh is privileged to perform.
Yet today, we can thank the Greeks for their gift of demons to
Christianity. And those who cling to the idea that Satan and
demons are real will continue to degrade the sovereignty of the
One Creator as a being who is limited by a secondary lesser God. If
removing Satan from the belief system of a culture is impossible, it
is not because millions of people believe in Satan; it is because
millions of people refuse to honestly assess their belief to
determine if it is accurate according to Scripture and history.
334
CH AP TE R 1 2
Is Satan Revealed In Revelation?
Revelation is the most provocative book in the entire collection of

Apostolic writings. In it we see all the familiar demonology terms
like Satan, the serpent, the dragon, the beast, the false prophet,
and of course the devil. On first blush it appears these characters
rise to the surface as foreboding end-time monsters trying to
assert themselves one last time before the end of the world as we
know it. It also seems these heinous monsters are soon going to be
burned up in a sulfuric lake when the Messianic King finally gets
his hands on them. Satan is not depicted in any other book as
having more intensity and more power than he has in Revelation.
This group of letters, called Revelation, is placed in its own literary
category. The reason being is because it is so mystical. Even amid
such apparent mystical tones, New Testament loyalists propound
that the images of Satan in the book, such as a multi-headed beast,
and many other elements, are real. To so many Christians today
these elements of John’s vision are as real as when they look in a
mirror. So now we must look at the book of Revelation. Can
Satan be found in this book and is this book Scripture?
We will discuss the individual passages in the book of

Revelation that pertain to the non-existence of “Satan” in Volume
4 of Imagine There’s No Satan. For now though, we will try to
liberate ourselves from the error in thinking that Revelation is
Scripture and has the authority and intent of Scripture. We must
decide if these apocalyptic letters are good for doctrine, correction,
instruction, and training in righteousness. If we let the book of
CHAPTER 12 –Is Satan Revealed In Revelation? 335

Revelation testify of itself, we are able to conclude that Revelation

is a deeply symbolic set of writings, which were intended to go out
to groups of believers. And just as with each of the other writings
contained in the New Testament, these letters were not considered
to be Scripture by the writer or the hearer.
The adamant claim the book of Revelation is “Scripture” is a
common declaration for many. But it is a declaration made
without truly examining the claim. They who make this claim have
decided their ideological box has been closed. Few have left room
for questioning if the revelation of John is Scripture or not. It is
prudent to allow ourselves to think outside the box and explore the
question of what, if any, of the New Testament writings are
Scripture. It is good to not place our beliefs in a box declaring they
are completely set and cannot be changed. If we resist having a box
that is closed, then we are able to receive information and insight
that allows us to see exactly what we believe and why we believe it.
After that we can decide if what we believed is still an absolute
truth when exposed to the light. I am asking if you can do this with
me yet for one more book in the Bible. Can you go a little further
with me and explore the writings of John the revelator? I agree, it’s
possible that Revelation may be an amazing God inspired text, but
is it possible that Revelation may not be Scripture? Remember,
just because someone writes something that is inspired by the
Creator does not mean it is Scripture. And if we can find that the
Revelation is not Scripture then the doctrine of Satan takes a great
fall.
Revelation is literature with some of the most potent images
and descriptions of the Satan of Christianity. Therefore, if we can
determine this surreal book of vision is not Scripture then all the
images in the document will need to be assessed through a
different perspective than that of Christianity. The elements of
Revelation have been so profoundly distorted by the literal
interpreters of Christianity that a refreshed perspective when
examining these elements will undoubtedly bring much needed
understanding. The Satan of Revelation can be understood. But we
must understand what the Revelation is and how the writer
336
intended the hearer to understand his message. Once clarity is

restored then the false doctrine of Satan will take another fall. The
fall of false doctrine may have been the meaning of Christ saying
he saw the adversary fall like lightning upon the return of the 70
disciples. We will see things come clear as we go through an
examination of this marvelous literary work that so many have
claimed identifies the casting to Hell of a Dragon called Satan.
When Was Revelation Written?

Revelation was believed to be written by the apostle John while in
exile on the Island of Patmos. Most scholars place a date on this
writing in the early 90’s CE. It is probable though that this book
was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem of
70 CE. The content of the letter makes specific allusion to the
Temple service still operating in Jerusalem. These allusions would
be misleading if the writing of this book occurred in the 90’s. As a
book that has encouraged eschatology, “the study of last things,”
for centuries, Revelation is often seen as the document with the
most significant predictions of when the “end” will come. This
document has also been instrumental in prognosticators
attempting to describe not only what will happen in the “last days”
but also how it will happen. The visions that come to John in some
parts of his writing are dramatic and explicit, or so it seems. But in
reality, these letters are still a collection of visions that are
intended to be taken as allegorical.
The sheer number of mytho-poetic and mythological images
used in John’s vision testify to the non-literal aspect of this
writing. Such vivid imagery is common in apocalyptic writings
such as John’s revelation of Yeshua the Messiah. We are told about
the appearance of a messenger who is sent to John to “signify”
these things. What does signify mean? Well quite simply it means
John would be shown symbolic elements. John’s vision is not one
of new images and occurrences; in fact, what John has seen in
visions can be read about in the Hebrew Scriptures that were
written by many of the Prophets of Israel. We must try to view the
Revelation through the eyes of understanding using the Hebrew

Scriptures to define the terms and events used by John, instead of

thinking that John is privileged to see inexplicable events and
world ending situations which cannot be understood by today’s
reader. Many who are eager to see the images in this writing as
literal descriptions of actual occurrences fail to recognize the
amount of “Old Testament” text and allusion to text that John has
placed in his letters. John is seeing things in his mind that were
spoken of by many of the prophets of old. Throughout the entire
document, one can see the content has been taken from Daniel,
Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, with employment of
terms and images already seen in an identical or very similar
manner in other books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Vincent Word
Studies understands this concept and explains it well; as does the
book, “Invention of the Bible and Talmuds” citing Norman Cohn;
The symbolism of Revelation is Jewish, and not

Greek or Roman. It is pervaded with the style
and imagery of the Old Testament, and is
molded by its historical and prophetical books.
“The book,” says Professor Milligan, “is
absolutely steeped in the memories, the
incidents, the thoughts, and the language of the
Church's past. To such an extent is this the
case that it may be doubted whether it contains a
single figure not drawn from the Old Testament,
or a single complete sentence not more or less
built up of materials brought from the same
source.... It is a perfect mosaic of passages
from the Old Testament, at one time quoted
verbally, at another referred to by distinct
allusion; now taken from one scene in Jewish
338
history, and now again from two or three

together.”75
Akenson writes about this topic and says;
The book of Revelation turns the whole

Christian narrative into an apocalyptic one. The
book forces us to read the entire text of the
“New Testament” as an apocalypse, one which
starts with the birth of Jesus and ends with
Christ’s kingdom in eternity. Norman Cohn
notes that Revelation, though a profoundly
Christian work is a document wherein “the
Jewishness of the work is everywhere apparent.
Not only is it influenced by Jewish apocalypses
– many passages are simply translated from the
Hebrew Bible and in addition there are more
than three hundred references to Daniel, Isaiah,
Second Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
76
Zechariah”
Two poignant statements in the above quotes are;

“... it may be doubted whether it contains a single figure not
drawn from the Old Testament.” And the second is; “…there
are more than three hundred references to Daniel, Isaiah,
Second Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah.
Those statements are so telling that I highlighted them above and

thought it necessary to repeat them so that they might be properly
75
VINCENT'S WORD STUDIES, Marvin R. Vincent, D.D- emphasis added
76
Page 227 Surpassing Wonder, The Invention of the Bible and Talmuds, by Donald
Harmon Akenson. The above quote contains reference to Norman Cohn work Cosmos
Chaos and the World to Come, The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith - emphasis
added

digested. If a vision that is experienced by a biblical writer makes

its way to a written composition shall we take this as reason to see
the images and symbols in his vision as things that are literal?
Daniel’s visions were not literal, Joseph’s dreams were not literal,
and Jacob seeing a ladder going up to Heaven was not literal.
Neither were the visions of any biblical character we have record of
known to be literal, at least that I have seen so far. I am not saying
the one who had the vision did not see what they claimed to have
seen in their vision. I am saying the things seen in the vision are
not to be thought to be literal but are symbols representing other
things.
Does A Two-Edged Sword Really Come Out Of Christ’s

Mouth?
Of course my “box” of interpretation is not sealed on this one as I

always want the opportunity to have light of truth shine in if there
need be. John’s writings describing his visions are no different
than the visions of the Prophets of Israel and the things he has
seen are not to be seen as literal images. Here is an example of the
importance and simplicity of seeing symbolism as symbolic. One
cannot expect that the two-edged sword John saw proceeding from
the mouth of Yeshua was actually a cold, steel blade with razor
sharp edges on both sides coming out of the oral opening in the
Messiah’s face. Rather, the symbol that the hearer of John’s letter
would have likely equated it with is a reference to the Torah and or
the Holy Scriptures. A two-edged sword refers to the words of
truth that proceed from Messiah’s mouth.
Revelation1:16 KJV And he had in his right hand seven stars: and
out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his
countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
John is not saying Yeshua is some type of a sword

expectorator by imaging a two-edged sword coming from His
mouth. Nor is John stating in this verse that Yeshua is physically
340
hanging on to 7 suns from different solar systems in saying he held

seven stars in His hand. Perhaps Yeshua could do these things, but
here, in the Book of Revelation, John is providing us with fantastic
imagery and symbolism. These symbols are intended to teach
about a past or future event through painting a picture in mythical
images. To help us realize they are symbols, one can find a clue in
the first verse of the “book” where we are basically told they are
symbols. In Revelation 1:1, the text tells us, that as for the things
yet to happen, they are being “signified” by an angel that was sent.
The Greek word in Revelation 1:1 translated as signified, carries
the meaning of something that is representing another thing.
Hence it speaks of a symbol that is not literal but does stand for
something else. If I draw you a picture of a garbage truck and say it
signifies something… like let’s say the eventual removal of all the
negative stuff in your life…then you would not think a literal
garbage truck is coming around. Rather you would understand the
picture I gave you signifies something else. Notice the wording in
the verse below. John is told the things that will come to pass are
signified by the angel.
Revelation 1:1 KJV The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave
unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come
to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant
John:
This angel may be cosmic or may be human and there are

clues written in John’s document that suggest the messenger is
another man. One such clue is that John is told by the messenger
to not bow because he, the messenger, is a servant like John.
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou
do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the
testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the
spirit of prophecy. Revelation 19:10 KJV
We also see in that verse John is shown the messenger is

from among his brethren, which would indicate the messenger

might be another Israelite male, who in this case would have been
sent by Yahweh to provide some insight to John. After all, John
wasn’t the only spiritual man in the period wherein he had his
visions. John’s messenger may well have been a prophet who was
knowledgeable about the writings of the Torah the Psalms and the
Prophets. If this is the case, it is little wonder there are so many
references and allusions in the Revelation to prophecies and
occurrences from the Hebrew Scriptures. So, it is possible either
John was sent an angel/messenger from Heaven or it is possible
Yahweh sent a human being with a tremendous message as the
messenger/angel. We discussed the very distinct possibility of
“angels” being human men in Volume I, so I will not elaborate at
this time. If it were a man, the messenger would have been one
who was capable of teaching certain mysteries found in the
Hebrew Scriptures and passed them on to John to be written down
in the apocalyptic fashion we have today.
What Does Apocalyptic Mean?
Interestingly enough, the writing from John is seen as

“apocalyptic” in style. The word “Apocalypse” means something
which was hidden. And Certainly there are numerous things which
seem hidden in the book of John but the title given the document
is “The Revelation,” and all uses of the Greek word apokoluptos in
the “New Testament” are in a context of something being made
known or revealed. John is having some things revealed to him
and it seems that part of this message is being given to him by a
human messenger and part of the message John receives appear to
be visions from Yahweh presented by an angelic entity or
manifestation.
To briefly recap what Apocalyptic literature is, I will give you
some thoughts from the ISBE;
A series of pseudepigraphic works, mainly of

Jewish origin, appeared during the period
342
between 210 bc and 200 ad. They have many

features in common. The most striking is the
resemblance they all bear to the Book of Daniel.
Following this model, most of them use “vision”
as a literary device by which to introduce their
conceptions of the remote future.
John’s revelation also seems to speak of things in the distant

future, which is a characteristic truly like most other apocalyptic
literature. The preamble to the Book of Revelation in the
Zondervan Encyclopaedic Reference Bible also agrees with the
text of Revelation being a whole bunch of symbolism;
Apocalypse is the Greek title (meaning

“hidden”) and refers to the kind of writing which
emphasizes prediction of future events, using
symbols and imagery to interpret the actions of
God in both present and future times.….
…It is likely that John deliberately chose the

form of “apocalyptic” writing with its strange
and mysterious symbols to communicate a
message to these churches while effectively
concealing its meaning from any Roman
authorities who might discover the book.77
By coming to the realization that symbolism was the literary tool

of choice for John as he wrote the revelation, we will be equipped
to understand his vision about the dragon and other beast
references in his letters.
77
Zondervan Encyclopedic Reference Bible, King James Version. Pg 1069 (emphasis
added)

New Testament Literature Is Unique Compared To Other

Writings
A couple of points I ask that you would remember from the above
statement to be called to mind later in our discussion on who or
what “satan” is in the book of Revelation, are these;
 John used mysterious symbols to communicate.
 The message was to be concealed from the Roman
authorities.
I admit that acknowledging the prolific use of “Old Testament”

concepts and ideas by John, and stating that John’s writing is
replete with mysterious symbols, does not preclude Revelation
from being given the same level of authority as we see given the
Hebrew Scriptures. It does however help us to understand that
this literature is unique from all the other “New Testament”
literature. It may be unique compared to the other writings but is
it still simply letters that were not intended to be viewed as
Scripture by those in John’s generation or by future generations?
In chapter one, we learn John is clearly writing letters to the
“angels” of the seven assemblies in Asia. It is clear there were more
than seven “churches” in Asia during that period, but John was
exercising his right to literary symbolism in addressing the letters
to “Seven” called out assemblies.
Revelation 1:4 KJV John to the seven churches which are in Asia:
Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was,
and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before
his throne;
Who Was This Angel John Wrote His Letter To?
Some have tried to claim the “angels” John wrote to are cosmic
beings who work as agents of God. However, it is clear in history
that there was an officer in the assemblies who would take on a
form of leadership in helping to organize and inform the assembly
344
of what was going on in their own community. This person was

called “the angel.” Another major role of the “angel” was to read
letters that came to the community, which is why John addresses
his letters to the “angel.” This angel was called the Methurgeman
in early Hebrew communities or perhaps the Chazan by some.
Either officer could be in view here. The Methurgeman was the
one appointed to interpret the words of the Rabbi or preacher into
the language of the people. He was also called upon to elaborate on
the teachings of the Rabbi in some instances. Alfred Edersheim
explains the term in his book The Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah;
When a great Rabbi employed a Methurgeman to

explain to the people his sermon, he would, of
course, select him for the purpose. Such an
interpreter was also called Amora, or speaker.
Perhaps the Rabbi would whisper to him his
remarks, while he would repeat them aloud; or
else he would only condescend to give hints,
which the Amora would amplify; or he would
speak in Hebrew, and the Amora translate it into
Aramæan, Greek, Latin, or whatever the
language of the people might be, for the sermon
must reach the people in the vulgar tongue. The
Amora would also, at the close of the sermon,
answer questions or meet objections.78
As for the Chazan, this officer still exists in Jewish

synagogues today. He has a scaled-down role in comparison to the
role in the early part of the Common Era. The Chazan was
responsible for the order of the gatherings and also to ensure the
proper person was performing the scheduled readings on a
78
The entire book by Edersheim can be read at http://philologos.org/__eb-
lat/book310.htm

particular Sabbath. The role of the Chazan in the first century was
one of the primary leadership roles. Again we can hear from
Edersheim about this office;
Thus, encircled by his pupils, as by a crown of

glory (to use the language of Maimonides), the
teacher, generally the Chazzan, or Officer of the
Synagogue [i For example,Shabb. 11 a.] should
impart to them the precious knowledge of the
Law, with constant adaptation to their capacity,
with unwearied patience, intense earnestness,
strictness tempered by kindness, but, above all,
with the highest object of their training ever in
view. To keep children from all contact with
vice; to train them to gentleness, even when
bitterest wrong had been received; to show sin
in its repulsiveness, rather than to terrify by its
consequences; to train to strict truthfulness; to
avoid all that might lead to disagreeable or
indelicate thoughts; and to do all this without
showing partiality, without either undue
severity, or laxity of discipline, with judicious
increase of study and work, with careful
attention to thoroughness in acquiring
knowledge, all this and more constituted the
ideal set before the teacher, and made his office
of such high esteem in Israel.79
The Chazan and the Methurgeman are two different titles

indicative of slightly varied roles but the general concept is the
79
Taken from ; CHAPTER IX ,THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN
JORDAN
THE CHILD-LIFE IN NAZARETH
346
same. The structure that employed the use of this officer existed in
the early assemblies. It was recognized by the people of the period
and we are informed of its existence in the New Testament
writings. A clear instance of the leader, Chazan, being mentioned
can be seen in the writing of Luke mentioned as the minister. The
following commentary by John Gill affirms the concept of the
Chazan being the one whom Yeshua returned the book to after
reading from it.
Luke 4:20
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat
down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were
fastened on him.
the Chazan (g), who was the minister, or servant

of the congregation, who had the affairs of it
upon him, to let in, and bring out, and to order
all things; and particularly to take care of the
book of the law, and the chest, or ark in which it
was.80
Therefore, to make sense of John’s actions in writing letters

to “the angels,” it is important to understand he was writing to
men in leadership positions in the assemblies throughout Asia.
What logic is there in thinking John is writing an actual paper
letter to a cosmic Angel to tell it of the shortcomings of some and
the laudable position of others in the body of believers? If Angels
in this instance were cosmic beings then wouldn’t an Angel be
more aware of the situation with the assembly than John would? It
is not sensible to think that John would send these letters to
cosmic angels by the hand of a messenger as if the “angels” are
able to be located at some physical geographic location.
A couple of statements by Joseph Ennemoser as to how he
understood the meaning of “angels” in the New Testament are
80

found in his work, The History of Magic” Volume II. Ennemoser

writes;
Amongst the Jews the chief person in the

synagogue was called the angel of the
congregation.
By an evil angel is understood a wicked man, a

false prophet: for instance , Alexander the
coppersmith – I Tim. iv. 14.
A Prisoner Of Rome Must Write In Code So The Guards

Let Him Send His Mail
I do concede, this writing of John’s is closer still to Scripture in its

content than many of the other books of the “New Testament.”
However, keep in mind that an actual written document, sent from
a prisoner of Rome, to the believers in Yeshua, was intended to
encourage persecuted believers of the day and to tell them what
trials the future holds for the faithful. This letter was composed in
such a way so as to not bring down greater persecution from the
oppressive Roman government on the already battle-weary
believers. The Roman mail censors didn’t have a clue that all the
talk about beasts, dragons, false prophets, and satanas was about
Rome. But the recipients of John’s letters knew.
John knew the war against the believers was due to the fact
that they kept Yahweh’s commands and testified that Yeshua was
the Messiah. I am not yet ready to discourse on all that is wrapped
up in John’s imagery of a dragon persecuting a woman and her
children. But it helps to understand that John was keeping himself
from being found out as one who continued to oppose the Romans
and the Roman persecution of believers under the hand of the
Romans. John was clever enough to avoid using terms that the
“Big Brother” would be able to figure out, so he spoke of the
348
Roman oppressor as “the dragon” or “the beast” so that his letters

would make it off the island of Patmos and into the hands of the
eager believers in their respective cities and towns.
If we are careful to recognize John’s need to speak in a simple
coded language, we can begin to see that John is not speaking of a
supernatural creature better known as “Satan” in his vision. Our
discussion on this topic will go into depth later on but for now, it
starts to come clear that the Roman system of governance and
religion is the “dragon” John speaks of. He tells us that the ones
Rome is persecuting are those who keep the commands of God and
have the testimony of Yeshua. The dragon that made war with the
saints is the Imperial Roman government and her allied religious
institutions. Most Christians of today don’t meet the description
that deems them to be recipients of Rome’s heavy-handed tactics,
yet many readily claim they are the persecuted ones because of
their choice to be Christian. The vision John had was relayed to
the “angels” of the assemblies, using the imagery of a dragon being
“wroth” with the woman and those who keep the commandments
found in the Torah and who have the testimony of Yeshua. Rome
was the “dragon” that opposed the first century believers spoken of
in Revelation chapter 12.
And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth,
and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war
with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of
God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 12:16-17 KJV (emphasis added)
John’s letters were not thought of as Scripture by John nor

would the recipients of the letters of John’s revelation have even
come close to thinking of the writing as an addition to the Holy
Scriptures, no matter which man or group of men decided to
venerate the words of John. The Holy Scriptures were set and
could not be added to or taken away from. John gives this warning
in the final chapter of his document and unless John was raising
himself up to a position where he would be seen as a heretic, it is

likely he was referring to all the words of prophecy that he

presented in his writing, which came from the Hebrew Scriptures.
John would not have been so arrogant as to apply to his letters the
same rules as were placed on the Torah in the book of
Deuteronomy. The rule that prohibited adding to or taking away
words from the writings. Had he done so, he would have been
setting his words up as being equal to Scripture. His letters were
addressed to a handful of persecuted groups of believers, and even
though they contained large amounts of prophecy from the
Scriptures; no one receiving them would have thought that one
day they would be called “Scripture.”
At one point John delivers a warning against adding to or
taking away from this book. We should not get confused to think
that John is referring to his own writings. John uses two slightly
different words that are both translated as “this” when referring to
what is in the writing. Notice the different Strong’s numbers
assigned to the word “this” in the following verse.
Revelation 22:18 KJV+ For1063 I testify4828 unto every man3956 that

heareth191 the3588 words3056 of the3588 prophecy4394 of this5127 book,975
If1437 any man5100 shall add2007 unto4314 these things,5023 God2316 shall
add2007 unto1909 him846 the3588 plagues4127 that are written1125 in1722
this5129 book:975
In using a different word to speak of “this” book, John may

more likely be saying any who alter the words of prophecy written
about in this book will have the plagues that are written about in
this scroll brought upon them. Another way to look at what John is
saying can be seen in the structure of the Greek. He may be saying,
“Anyone who alters the words of the Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures,
that this is what Yahweh will do to them.” God will bring upon him
the plagues that are written in that same book that he has altered.”
The scribes who have translated John’s words out of Greek and
into English have decided that when John used the Greek word for
“this “and “the same,” that they should place it before the word
biblion, thus indicating that John was warning the hearer not to
change the words of his writing. However, John was only
350
interested in upholding the Holy Scriptures and was therefore

warning against the alteration of the same Holy Scriptures. A text
that his work repeatedly quoted from and borrowed imagery from.
Looking into the Greek structure of John’s warning you will
see for yourself that the Greek does not say “the words of
prophecy of this book” meaning John’s writing. Rather, it says,
“the words of prophecy of the biblion,” meaning the words John
has written that are from Scripture. The Greek then goes on to say,
removal from the book of life will happen if any man shall add to
or take away from the words John has shared. John has provided
words from Scripture to the readers of his letters so he reiterates
the message of the Torah from Deuteronomy 4 and 12 prohibiting
adding to the words of the Torah. To any who do so, will come the
same plagues that are written about in the letters John has
composed.
Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV Ye shall not add unto the word which I
command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may
keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command
you.
Deuteronomy 12:32 KJV What thing soever I command you,

observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
For John to consider his documented vision as equal with the

Holy Scriptures would be seen as blasphemy. A claim so brash
would have caused him to be rejected as a true messenger of
Yahweh. False prophets were seen to add to the Scriptures and
John was not about to declare he was in the process of writing
Scripture. The Torah, of which not one jot or tittle had passed
away, had already taught that it is the Scriptures that are a
document protected from addition or deletion of any of its
contents. John is not saying his document is Scripture as much as
he is saying the prophecy within his document that comes from the
Hebrew Scriptures is not to be added to or altered in any way.

Whether it be by some ridiculous interpretation or by physically

altering the words. Anyone known to have added to or taken away
from the words of the Torah was given the dubious distinction of
being called a false witness or false prophet. John was not
interested in doing something that would reduce his credibility as
a prophet of the Most High.
Was John A Greek Minded Writer Or A Hebrew Minded

Writer?
I cannot neglect to mention that the earliest manuscripts of this

letter are found in the Greek language. John however, was a
Hebrew man and a Hebrew writer, yet because all we have is a
Greek text as the source of all the translations of Revelation, we
are limited to accept a Greek philosophy when one reads the
letters. We are however not completely limited because the Jewish
style of the document is undeniable and can be seen to underlie
the message John delivers. The Apocalypse of John is an
unquestionably Hebraic document. Its tone, structure, and
message are clearly from a Hebrew mind. The Hebraisms, idioms,
Temple references, and language structure, all point us in a
direction of perceiving that this document may have been
originally a Hebrew or at least Aramaic language composition. If
this is the case then the argument of being limited in
understanding the Revelation becomes stronger. It is understood
that translating language from Hebrew to Greek will often cause
the nuance of the text to be concealed or in some cases, altogether
lost. For those who received John’s writing, it was clear to them
what he was trying to tell them and they gained the
encouragement that was intended by John as he obediently did as
he was asked to do by Yeshua. Those hearing the original letters
were capable at comprehending the meaning of the words from a
Hebraic perspective. The role of John was not overly complicated
nor was the message he was to bring supposed to be difficult for
the hearers to interpret. All that John would see in visions was to
be written down and to be given to the seven assemblies.
352
Revelation 1 tells us of the nature of what John would be seeing in

his vision. The things seen were things that had happened in the
past, things that were current with the time of John’s writing,
things yet to happen.
Revelation 1:18-20 KJV I am he that liveth, and was dead; and,

behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and
of death.
Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which
are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand,
and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of
the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest
are the seven churches.(emphasis added)
After this instruction, we see John is obedient to his call and

he proceeds to write all that he has seen in visions. The compelling
and encouraging letter sent throughout Asia would be read by all
the groups it was addressed to. At this time, the groups reading
from the letter of John’s Revelation of Yeshua would have known
only the Hebrew Scriptures are “Scripture.” There was no New
Testament to rely on at the time. John’s inspired and symbolically
charged letter would add to them a great deal, and add to them
precisely what was needed and intended for them by the Messiah,
yet all would recognize that it was just an inspired letter full of
Scriptural concepts and quotations yet was not Scripture. The
believers who received this document would have had little trouble
using it for its intended purpose so why does Christianity, which is
1900 years removed from the situation, have so much trouble
using the letter correctly? It seems the answer is because
Christianity has been told this letter is Scripture for so long, that in
the deepest recesses of their belief, Christians genuinely believe it
is Scripture. However, believing something is so does not make it
so.
So Should We Throw Out The Book Of Revelation?

Am I saying I think we should toss the Book of Revelation and

continue in a walk of faith without it? Definitely not! But I think
we should eliminate it as a source of doctrine, correction,
instruction, and training in righteousness. I do think we should
recognize it as words that were inspired by the Creator. Given to
John to embolden us as we perceive the end of days is near. I
suggest we hold it as a valuable document that Yahweh wanted the
original recipients to hear because of their present persecution and
forthcoming tribulations. We ought not to consider Revelation is
Scripture in the same way we should not consider a letter, full of
Old Testament passages from a mother to her drug-addict son in
prison as Scripture. Nor would we consider a letter of
encouragement, with analogies and symbols that spoke of an
upcoming day of liberation as the son is released from prison to be
Scripture.
Revelation may be seen as a letter, encouraging us to realize
that we do not have to suffer unceasingly, because the system that
fights to hold us captive will not prevail. I suggest we accept
Revelation as a letter of testimony that tells how the evil forces of
this world that prevent worshippers of God from full expression of
their faith, will not overcome the faithful forever. Accepting it as
that type of a document instead of a document that has added
words to Scripture places us in agreement with Yahweh who said,
the Scripture cannot be broken. It seems clear Revelation was not
written as Scripture, was not received by the recipients as
Scripture, and will not be used in the future Kingdom of God as
Scripture. Why then would anyone believe the claims of men from
the second, third, and fourth centuries, who took it upon
themselves to call Revelation and the Apostolic writings Scripture?
And why then should we mistake the symbolism and imagery that
includes a beast, a dragon, a serpent, and a devil for elements that
are real and literal? Why should we presume these symbolic
elements are intended by the Hebrew writer to depict a literal
cosmic force of supernatural evil? Well, we shouldn’t.
354
We would do well to move past the error in thinking Satan

can be found in Revelation and move towards understanding John
used terms that pointed toward the Imperial Roman oppressor.
When John wrote about a beast or a dragon he did not have a
cosmic minor deity in his thoughts nor did he have a supernatural
evil being on his mind. When John wrote about a beast and a devil,
or a dragon and a serpent, he had thoughts about the politico-
religious system that brought false doctrine to the masses and
acted in the role as adversarial oppressor of the people of God.
The Satan Of Christianity Cannot Be Found In The Book

Of Revelation.
There was no cosmic Satan in the minds of John or of any of the

biblical writers. You and I have been handed an ancient myth that
was constructed by man. When we stumble on the English words
in this ancient Greek document that was written by Hebrew
thinkers, we should be careful to honor the intent of the author.
The authorial intent is known to be a whole lot different and a
whole lot less mystical than the intent of those in Christianity who
have taken it on themselves to interpret these ancient writers.
They have mistakenly interpreted writers like John through their
own Greco-Roman, 21st century, pre-determined perspective that
Satan is real. This is a claim that goes against the message of the
God of the Bible that states; He is God and there is none else…not
even a supernatural, god-like being known as Satan.

356
CH AP TE R 1 3
Where Would Satan Be
Without The New Testament?
What Can We Learn From The New Testament?
It seems that the doctrine of Satan is fully developed in the New

Testament. But logic, evidence, and reason, show that Satan is not
found in the Old Testament and according to Christ and the
Apostles, the New Testament has no authority to introduce this
doctrine. What then should we do with the New Testament if in
fact it is not Scripture? Is there then no reason to use the “New
Testament” to benefit in understanding the cultural and religious
period of Messiah and the Apostles? Is it against the plan of the
God of Israel to have an adjunct such as the Gospels, the Epistles,
the Pastorals, and Revelation along side the Hebrew Scriptures?
Does the “New Testament” contradict and in cases change what
has been received as doctrine, based on the “Old Testament”?
Surely it is beneficial to use the Apostolic writings to find out
about the Messiah’s appearance in the world and the ministry He
had in His adult life that led Him to death by crucifixion and His
subsequent resurrection. One might question, if we don’t use the
“New Testament,” how can we know the Messiah is planning to
return again? How can we know that he is coming not as a
suffering servant but as a roaring lion that will restore
righteousness and do an end of wickedness? All of these questions
need to be answered. I think they can be answered by saying this.
The Torah the Psalms and the Prophets all teach things most of
Christianity thinks are only taught in their New Testament. Paul
CHAPTER 13 – Where Would Satan Be Without The New Testament? 357

was able to teach who the Messiah was by using the Scriptures and
not from a pocket “New Testament.”
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by

the scriptures that Yeshua was The Messiah. Acts 18:28
The question that asks, how we can know Yeshua is Messiah

without the New Testament, is a question based in ignorance.
Ignorance of what the Old Testament teaches about the Messiah.
The first century ministers of Christ were able to see Yeshua was
Messiah from the available Old Testament document. Beyond that,
Paul was also able to add his testimony of a true encounter with a
resurrected Messiah to the message he brought from the
Scriptures. He did not add his testimony to the Scriptures so that
his testimony became Scripture, but he had experiential
knowledge that fully supported what was taught in the Hebrew
Scriptures. And that is what his witness and all the witnesses in
the Apostolic writings are able to do for us today. They handily
provide acceptable testimony to the Messiah’s appearing, life,
ministry, death, and resurrection. We can’t have the Apostles bring
us news in person, so I am thankful that their records have been
somewhat preserved in tact for me to hear from today.
We of course, do not have the privilege today of hearing from

the mouth of Paul, or John, or James, or any of the players in the
first century. Had we that privilege we might then be inclined to do
as the Bereans did in the period of Paul’s ministry. They were a
group who searched the Old Testament to determine if Yeshua was
the Messiah. Please hear this point. They did not search the New
Testament. They searched the only available Scriptures for the
answer to who the Messiah was.
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night
unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the
Jews.
358
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they

received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the
scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which
were Greeks, and of men, not a few. Acts 17:10-12 KJV
Why Build A Doctrine Of Satan From Something That Is

Not Scripture?
Recognizing the “New Testament” for what it is and what it is not

is certainly an exercise in critical thinking. Accepting “on faith”
that the New Testament is Scripture is simply senseless. The mass
of scholars, Catholic and otherwise, who declare the New
Testament is Scripture are simply scholars who find ways to
propagate a traditional view. A view that was passed down to them
by their teachers. And any who blindly agree with it, are guilty of
not searching out a matter to prove all things. The New Testament
may appear to tell of a character called “Satan” who is opposed to
the Creator and all His children. If this is in fact the message that
comes from the “New Testament” about Satan, then one only need
determine if this is a doctrine present in the Old Testament.
Because the New Testament does not have authority to make a
new doctrine. Being that the doctrine of “Satan” is not in the
Hebrew Scriptures, and that the “New Testament” is not good for
doctrine because it is not Scripture, then there has to be another
explanation for what the New Testament is and how we are to use
it.
Accurate…yes - Compelling…yes- But It Is Still Not

Scripture
We might be of more noble character than the Thessalonians and

actually search the “Old Testament” to decide if the doctrine of the
resurrected Messiah was true as Paul was claiming it to be.
Perhaps we should employ the same scholarly integrity to see if the

doctrine of Satan is true in the Old Testament. This use of

Scripture to determine the validity of the claim that Yeshua was
Messiah shows us that we do not need to believe the New
Testament is Scripture to know He was the Messiah. All the
Bereans needed to introduce them to the potential Messiah was
testimony from another man. That is what we have in the
Apostolic writings today. We do not have “Scripture” we have the
testimony of some reliable men.
In fact, any doctrine a person might have heard would be
searched out in the Hebrew Scriptures to see if it were true.
Therefore, hearing the testimony of the apostles as we have it
today in written form should send a person to search the Hebrew
Scriptures, to see if all that is being said in the Apostolic
Testimony is true.
Recognizing that new doctrine cannot be developed from the
words of a follower of Messiah such as Paul, nor on the writings
and letters that circulated in the first century testifying to the
Messiah, we should automatically default to the Hebrew Scriptures
as our source for doctrine. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again,
doctrine cannot come from any source other than the Holy
Scriptures, the Old Testament. Just as a doctrine that is teaching
about the death and resurrection of the Messiah must be proved
through the diligent search of the Scriptures, so too should a
doctrine that professes the existence of a cosmic archenemy who is
in opposition to the Creator be provable through the Hebrew
Scriptures. Assuming for a moment that the concept of Satan that
is spoken of in the “New Testament” is understood correctly by
Christianity today, we have the same opportunity to prove whether
or not the supposed “New Testament” doctrine of “Satan” is found
in the Holy Scriptures. Otherwise, we must recognize it as a man-
made doctrine. If the doctrine of Satan cannot be found in the Old
Testament then it is not a biblical doctrine.
We Can Have A Balanced View Of The New Testament
360
If you have read Volume I of Satan Christianity’s Other God, you

will see that so far we have looked extensively at the concept of
“Satan” as found in the Hebrew Scriptures. We can see quite
glaringly that the Christian doctrine of “Satan,” which is gleaned
from misunderstanding the “New Testament” writings and
misapplying the Apostolic Testimony, is not found in the “Old
Testament.” The practice of seeing the “New Testament” as
bonafide “Scripture,” will lead many down a trail of doctrinal
error. Again, allow me to make myself clear, I am not saying the
“writings” known as the New Testament are to be denied as
valuable documents to provide assistance in some areas of
theology and areas of faith in the God of Israel. Many scholars take
the position that we cannot accept the writings contained in the
“New Testament” because of the controversy of composition dates,
authors, and the apparent contradictions with the Old Testament.
Numerous scholars have posited that the “New Testament” is
unreliable and cannot be reconciled with the “Old Testament”
depicting an appearance of God that is vastly different from “Old”
to “New.” Some are resolved to claim that a person cannot benefit
by reading the writings in the “New Testament” and others flatly
state the New Testament is anti-nomian, or teaching against the
Laws of Yahweh, therefore it is a heretical fabrication and a
mythological tale. I personally am not in the camp of any of the
aforementioned parties. The arguments swarm in a dazzling array
of confused intellect bent on rejecting the testimony of the
Apostles. My position is somewhat different from a typical view
one might find in theological seminary or a secular university. My
opinion is likened to that of a first century believer who never had
the opportunity to meet Paul or James or John, or any of the
Apostles. Those uniquely situated first century believers would
have taken the letters from the Apostles as a compelling witness to
the events of the day. No one would have embraced the “New
Testament” as a document imbued with the same authority and
strength to design doctrine as the Hebrew Scriptures and neither
do I. My position is also not one that states we should reject the

validity of the Apostolic Testimony all together. My position does

not question the authorship to such an extent that I refuse to
acknowledge any teaching or message which comes from it.
Based On The Evidence My Position Is This;

The “New Testament” is a compilation of letters from valid and
credible witnesses who endeavoured to share information and
insight about the life and ministry of Messiah. They also shared
insight on how to become part of the kingdom of God by living as if
Yeshua is God. This ancient compilation of writings is more
correctly called the Apostolic Testimony, or the Gospels, Letters,
and Pastorals. It is completely reconcilable, accountable, and
complementary to the Hebrew Scriptures. Where one appears to
contradict the other it is not because of a fault with the document
rather it is because we are misunderstanding the words of one or
the other due to the thousands of years span of time between the
day the words were written and today. It is usually the “New
Testament” that is misunderstood.
The Apostolic Testimony is the closest thing we have to
speaking with an eyewitness of the events of the first century as
they pertain to the Messiah so one must receive it and use it as
witness to the Messiah. In receiving the witness to the Messiah,
one must move on to prove the doctrines contained in the
Apostolic Testimony by searching the Hebrew Scriptures. If there
is an apparent contradiction between what is said in the Hebrew
Scriptures and what is said in the Apostolic Testimony, then
something is being misunderstood. The Hebrew Scriptures are the
filter through which all Apostolic Testimony must pass. I am able
to see that all Apostolic Testimony does agree completely with the
Hebrew Scriptures and the two volumes can be understood to be
in line with each other when a person explores both in a
comparative study of diligent cross-referencing. Agreement
between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Apostolic Testimony will
362
result when study of both is founded on understanding the

cultural, social, historical, and linguistic context.
Why Would God “Preserve” The New Testament If It’s

Not Scripture?
I do believe that Yahweh left these writings, which are only a few
in comparison to the many writings that have not been put in the
“New Testament” canon, so that we would not have to rely on
person to person oral testimony about the appearance of the
Messiah, being passed down to us over the past 2000 years. The
only reason the doctrines in the “New Testament” are able to be
true is because they can be sourced in the Hebrew Scripture. Aside
from details in stories that add to our understanding of the times
and timing of events of the first century, everything that could be
considered doctrinal teaching in the Apostolic Testimony is found
as doctrinal teaching in the Hebrew Scriptures. The New
Testament supports all that comes from the “Old Testament.” Any
scholar who attempts to pit one document against the other has
not worked to understand the documents for what they are
intended to be. One, the New Testament, is a testimonial
document, while the other, the Old Testament, is a Holy
Document. Although they are mutually supportive of each other
one is Scripture and the other is not. And two; the “New
Testament” testifies to the “Old” being Scripture, but the “Old”
does not testify to the “New” as being Scripture in the past present
or future.
Used properly, the Apostolic Testimony aids the reader in
standing firm on the doctrines of the Hebrew Scriptures and
benefits the reader in allowing us to realize we are not in the
position of Abraham, Moses, and David. They believed the well
known fact of the coming Messiah, without seeing. However,
because of the testimony of the apostles, we are able to see that the
Messiah has indeed come and has reaffirmed the age old message
that none of us are worthy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven on our

own merits…we need a God to get us there. We all need a

redeemer because none of us is able to redeem ourself. The
believer in Messiah embarks on his or her spiritual journey trying
to “sin no more” not because one can be saved by keeping
commands but because of a love for Yeshua, the salvation of God.
Those who embrace the Message of the Messiah should come to
know that sin separates us from Him.
If there is an idea or concept that seems to be found in the
“New Testament” but is not supported in the “Old Testament” then
the “New Testament” is placed in the position of having the
authority to change the words and doctrine of the Hebrew
Scriptures. If a new doctrine is derived from the “New Testament,”
but cannot be found in the “Old,” then someone somewhere is
using the “New Testament” for purposes of which it was never
meant to be used. If it appears Paul or the Messiah are changing
the doctrines and teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures with their
words recorded in the New Testament, then we are
misunderstanding what is being taught. Neither Paul nor the
Messiah would presume to do or say anything that lessened the
authority of the Holy Scriptures. It is unwise to presume that the
record we have today in the “New Testament” is a complete record
and is a completely flawless quoting of the Messiah. The writers
who penned the words of Yeshua are not claiming to have
recorded verbatim the words of the Messiah in the record they
have passed on.
Why Are The Words Of Jesus In Red? Are They Exact

Quotes Of What He Said?
I don’t believe it is fair to say that we have the words of Christ in

their complete and perfect form. Is it unlikely that the writers of
the Gospels, allegedly writing at best decades after the Messiah
had walked with them, were able to generate exact quotes, as they
would have proceeded from the Messiah’s mouth? With so many
different Greek manuscripts and translations of supposed original
compositions in Greek we find the Gospels disagree on several
364
occasions. However, we do have a collection of what are supposed

to be the words of the Messiah in the Gospels. If the words of
Christ are written down and Christ is God incarnate, should all
writings that contain the words of Yeshua then be considered
Scripture? The Gospels, the Revelation, and perhaps the book of
Acts are all writings that have the words of Yeshua contained in
them, but they were not called “Scripture” by the first hearers of
them. We certainly do not have a record of every word Yeshua
spoke, but nonetheless, words attributed to Yeshua are there. The
fact that the apostle John has told us that all Yeshua has done
could not be contained in all the books of the world helps us come
to a decision
John 20:30 KJV

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book:
John 21:25 KJV

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if
they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself
could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Just because we have some record of the words of Yeshua,

does not automatically mean the record is to be considered
“Scripture.” Otherwise, as was discussed earlier, if we were to
come upon an ancient document containing words alleged to be
from the Messiah’s mouth and written by another apostle, we
would have to assign the role of Scripture to it.
There are many documents such as the Gospel of Thomas or
the Gospel of Philip that claim to contain words of Yeshua. Some
of the words in these and other documents could truly be
attributed to Yeshua. These documents are mostly Gnostic texts
that were written much later than the primary Gospels that are
accepted as canonized. Even though the claim that these writings
contain the words of Yeshua is hardly provable, there is still the
possibility that some of the words in the Gnostic Gospels are words
of Yeshua. The fact that the claim is even made should cause us to

ask the question of whether the documents that contain the words
of Yeshua should be considered Scripture or not? What if we were
able to get our hands on other writings that told of what Yeshua
did and said? Are we then to consider them as Scripture? It makes
sense that not all of the information and reports that were written
down in the period of Yeshua’s life and beyond should be
considered Scripture. Just because a document is claimed to be the
exact words of the Messiah does not make it Scripture. Christ said
not one jot or tittle would disappear from the Old Testament He
did not indicate he was here to add to the Scriptures.
What Yeshua used as Scripture is what was approved by
Yeshua. Not one of the hundreds of letters circulating just after the
time of Yeshua would have been considered Scripture by Yeshua or
the Apostles. This includes the Gospels. With the exception of the
Revelation, nowhere in the “New Testament” writings do we find
where Yahweh or the Messiah Yeshua is said to be telling the
author to write words down so they can be read by large numbers
and groups of people as Holy Scripture. The Messiah never
questioned the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, neither did He
add to them. Rather He came to fulfill them. It was not until a
number of decades after Messiah had ascended into Heaven that
the leaders of religion begin to place similar authority onto the
Apostolic writings and the Gospels as was only placed on the
Hebrew Scriptures. A large part of the reason the authorship,
validity, and authority of the “New Testament” has been subject to
much controversy is partly because of its late development as
“Scripture,” after the period of the Apostles.
With Over 33000 Christian Sects Since The First

Century, It Seems Confusion Has Been The Fruit From
Calling the New Testament Scripture
When one looks at the fruit of the “New Testament” it is easy to see
how confusion has resulted by the use of this compilation of first
and second century letters. Letters that have been raised to the
366
position of scripture in the minds and hearts of billions of people.

A document, which is supposedly given by God, should not cause
so much division and controversy among those using it. Over
33000 different Christian denominations, sects, and religious
groups have been catalogued since the first century CE. How can
we see the World Christian Encyclopedia, an organization that
publishes data on world religious statistics, tabulate 10,000
distinct religious groups including 33,830 Christian
denominations, and a person not conclude that the “New
Testament” is the cause? Of course the New Testament is the cause
of this mass confusion. Is this because the New Testament is
wrong, heretical, or evil in any way? Definitely not! It is because of
the chronic and persistent misuse, misapplication, and
misunderstanding of the Apostolic writings. The documents
retained as a New Testament are not to be used to design doctrine.
And thousands of religious men and women have done just that. It
seems clear that such a confusing document has brought massive
confusion where Paul taught the simplicity of the Hebrew
Scriptures and the message of the Messiah contained in them. I
don’t believe the Apostolic writings themselves are the cause of the
confusion; rather it is misunderstanding them and wrongly
applying Scriptural authority to these documents which has
brought the confusion.
Don’t Scrap It … Use it Properly
If you or I publish a commentary on Shakespeare’s works or we

compose a story about Shakespeare’s life and interactions, and the
reader decides to believe our commentary is “Shakespeare,” then
confusion will be the result. The belief by today’s Christian culture
that the “New Testament” is Scripture and is equal to or better
than the “Old” because it is “New,” is so strong, that to refute that
claim or to challenge that belief results in one being viciously
scoffed at. The belief that the New Testament is Scripture is such a

Sacred Cow, that the religious minded cannot bare to entertain the
thought or suggestion to diminish its status.
Conversely, there have been Messianic Jewish and Messianic
Christian groups who have completely tossed out the New
Testament. In not being able to understand the Message it brings
through the filter of the Hebrew Scriptures, they claim it to be an
unworthy testimony of Yeshua and the first century. In so doing,
many individuals and groups have decided that Yeshua is not God
and did not die and resurrect as the Gospels proclaim. Very few of
those who decide the “New Testament” is not a valid witness,
actually make the effort to understand the “New Testament”
through the lens of the Hebrew Scriptures. Of these two beliefs
mentioned above however, the most prolific one is the errant belief
that suggests the New Testament is equal to the Old.
Surprisingly, many believe as Philo did, that the Old
Testament can only be understood in light of the “New.” Sensible
scholarship shows that the New must be viewed through the Old
but Philo and others today have conveniently reversed this logic.
This is a belief that has damaged the message of; “repent for the
Kingdom is at hand,” by keeping people from understanding that
to repent means to turn from breaking God’s commandments as
laid out in the Hebrew Scriptures. If someone wants to believe a lie
then not all the convincing in the world will change that. They
have to be open to believing that it is possible they could be wrong.
One should ask themself the question; “Is it possible what I believe
might be wrong?” Please try not to take the suggestion that you
might believe a wrong concept personally. So many folks get
anxious at the thought of potentially being wrong. If what you or I
believe is found to be wrong then start to change it, try not to get
offended at the messenger when the message that a belief you may
have is wrong is delivered. Because we live what we believe and
what we perceive is real to us, does not mean we must close up our
little box and refuse the entry of light that may help us change our
perceptions and beliefs, enabling us to live in truth to a greater
degree. Perhaps one should not blatantly reject opinions that
disagree with their beliefs or they will find they are rejected for
368
their beliefs. If there is a cogent segment of people who are able to

present evidence that the “New Testament” is not “Scripture” then
there is value in exploring those claims with some level of
openness. Belief in God does not have to change if we learn the
New Testament is not Scripture. What will change is our belief in
man.
Many Brilliant And Unbiased Scholars Have Questioned

The Claim That The New Testament Is Scripture
The scholarship that questions the “New Testament” authorship

and authority is vast. Many Christian scholars themselves are
unable to come into agreement as to some of the contents of the
“New Testament” and the dates of their writings. Even Martin
Luther, the great reformer responsible for the breaking away from
the Catholic Church by a protesting sect, attempted to omit the
book of James from the “New Testament” canon. In his view, the
book of James was too irreconcilable with what He saw as Paul’s
teaching on being saved by grace. Oddly enough, it was James who
wrote his letter to a broad group, addressing it to the scattered
Israelites who were no longer dwelling in Jerusalem. It would
seem that Luther was trapped in a terrible misunderstanding of
both Paul and James’ letters to think that they contradict each
other in some way. Paul was not saying not to do works as part of
the salvation in Christ path, and James was not saying that grace is
not part of the salvation by faith path. Both recognized what their
hearers would need to understand about a faith walk in Messiah
and wrote to enable them to live out a more complete version of
the Faith of the God of Israel. Luther and others have fallen from
grace themselves in many ways by not recognizing that the letters
of the apostles cannot contradict each other, neither can they
contradict the teaching of the Holy Hebrew Scriptures, otherwise
they are words of false prophets and not to be heeded.
The recent fray of activity and debate concerning the validity
of the “New Testament” has flourished, due in large part to such

things as the “Davinci Code” and the release of translations of the

Gospel of Judas. Scholars like Elaine Pagels have for years been
questioning whether or not the Nag Hamadi texts should be given
the same esteem and honour as the Catholic/Christian “New
Testament.” With all the evidence and conjecture that diminishes
the validity of the “New Testament” it is surprising that the “Bible”
is still the best selling book of all time, the most commented on
book and arguably the least understood book. Or maybe it’s not
too surprising, after all, isn’t controversy the fuel which propels
many great pieces of literature to best seller status. Just ask Dan
Browne how his book the Davinci Code would have sold if the
general reception to it was a blasé one, or even if it had been a
favourable reception by the majority of press and opinion. He is
likely to agree that sales would not have been quite as brisk.
Look at the idea of a Judas Gospel. Found in 1970, restored,
and copied in 2006, the Gospel of Judas has been said to have
been written prior to 180 AD. This is in line with reports from
other scholars as to the dating of certain Gospels and Letters, such
as Burton Mack writer of the “Lost Gospel” and “Who Wrote the
New Testament.” Most agree that the books of Luke and Acts were
written around 150 AD. Many of the dates set for the writing of the
New Testament literature are said to be in the similar period as
that which is reported for the writing of the Judas Gospel. The
Bishop Irenaeus who wrote in about 180 CE, had a stern
denouncement of the heresies he saw in the Judas Gospel. This
fact and the presence of other anti-heresy writings testifying to the
Gospel of Judas, are evidence that the Gospel of Judas was written
at or prior to the period of Irenaeus’ writings. The Judas document
is not proven to be written by the Judas who actually betrayed
Christ, but is thought to be written by one who had the story
passed down to him. The National Geographic web site has this to
say about the Gospel of Judas;
The Gospel of Judas predates the A.D. 180

publication of St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies.
The Bishop of Lyon's influential volume
370
sought to unify the Christian church by

savaging alternative views and
interpretations, referred to as "fictitious
histor(ies)."
Irenaeus' targets included the Gospel of

Judas and anyone who, because of this text,
looked favorably on Jesus' betrayer. The
Gospel is one of redemption for
Christianity's greatest villain. It relates that
Judas was the chosen disciple and a tragic
hero selected by Jesus to betray him.
In this Gospel Judas is the only disciple to

recognize Jesus' true nature as a divine
being. The text describes how, as Jesus'
final days unfold, he requests that Judas
betray him, warning him, "You will become
the accursed one."
The betrayal enabled Jesus to transcend

what Gnostics viewed as the flawed physical
world and return to his rightful place in the
spiritual realm. In this interpretation the
Crucifixion, enabled by the betrayal, is
necessary not so much for the forgiveness
of human sins, but to free Christ's divine self
from its mortal cloak. The Gospel of Judas
was inscribed on papyrus, most likely at a
Gnostic monastery in Egypt. Its existence
has long been known, primarily because of
surviving anti-heretical works that denounce

its tenets. But no copy was discovered until

the late 1970s and none has been available
to scholars or the public until now. The one
surviving copy was likely hidden in a tomb in
Middle Egypt, perhaps during St.
Athanasius's fourth-century campaign to
destroy "heretical" texts.81
If this Gospel is of a similar origin as other New Testament

literature and it is written pseudonymously as the books of the NT
are written, then should it be considered Scripture too? After all, if
at one time 1700 years ago, a group of men decided that the
present compilation of New Testament books that were composed
in the same period as the Judas Gospel are Scripture, then why
couldn’t a group of men with similar self-imposed ecclesiastical
authority decide this recently discovered text can be canonized?
Does the fact that 1700 years or so has passed since the closing of
the “New Testament” canon by the Catholics give reason to not
allow any further additions to the “New Testament?” The premise
would be the same. If a group of men supposedly charged with
authority, decided to include the Gospel of Judas in with the
present canon of books, because they were believed to have the
authority to do so, then why couldn’t they just add it to the canon?
One group of men with authority chose the canon and by their
decision closed the canon, so then could another group of men
with authority likened to the first group be able to open and add to
the canon? I have only one opinion, but I would hazard to say that
the Gospel of Judas, even though it is considered heretical
theology by some, is no more to be considered Scripture than is
the present compilation in the “New Testament.”
I do believe though that writings like the Gospel of Judas are
very different from the New Testament documents because they
were not written by Hebrew thinkers. Rather, they were
81
From the National Geographic website topic on the Lost Gospel of Judas;
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/timeline.html
372
compositions of Hellenized Greek thinkers. They are typically not

telling a story but are simply a collection of sayings believed to be
from Yeshua or the Apostles. Therefore, these writings do not
complement the Torah but actually go deeper in the realm of
changing Torah. The writers themselves composed their
documents while maintaining an erroneous viewpoint contrasting
the message the Hebrew Writers of the Apostolic Testimony
intended. I might stand alone on this but I disagree with those who
say, perhaps we should allow the entry of other writings from the
first and second century into the “Bible.” I submit that none of the
“New Testament” literature or any of the newly found writings that
many want to approve as Scripture can be called Scripture. There
is no Apostolic witness to them being Scripture and as they were
not used and approved by Messiah as Scripture, they are not to be
seen as such.
What is safe to say about the present “New Testament,” is
that one cannot dismiss the information that can be gleaned from
the earliest versions of these documents, particularly the
documents or portions of documents that can be understood to
uphold the Holy Scriptures through the message they bring to
humanity. I will not begin to catalogue and expound on the
contradictions in the individual testimony of the writers writing
their stories. These diverse writings come from varied perspectives
and with varied motivation to pen their thoughts. It is likely too,
that the writings we have today were the observations of
eyewitnesses, who then orally transmitted the stories to the
writers. Those writers eventually saw the value in penning the
accounts we read today in the Bible. It is because of the varying
perspectives of the writers that we receive different wording for
things that supposedly came from the Messiah’s mouth or were
spoken, written, or performed about or against Him.
I will state one simple example of how different the versions
are of what was written on the epitaph above the Messiah’s head as
He was being crucified. Each of the Gospels presents it differently
and there are many instances where a similar discrepancy can be
seen in the “New Testament” regarding one thing or another. For

many, the contradictions and differences is a reason to completely

discount the entire Apostolic Testimony, however, when critically
assessed and put to the test of determining the authors
perspective, intent, audience, and meaning, one is able to conclude
there is no damning evidence against the writers who do not agree
on exact wording. The following is just one example of many such
word choice differences between New Testament writers that are
readily noted by simply looking at a parallel of the Gospel. The
example below is the testimony from four different documents in
the New Testament telling about the sign above the head of the
Messiah as he was crucified.
Matthew 27:37 This is Jesus the King of the Jews

Mark 15:26 The King of the Jews
Luke 23:38 This is the King of the Jews
John 19:19 Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews
One is often hard pressed to explain the reason for the

differences, but if one realizes that they are reading an Apostolic
Testimony and not Scripture, then one need not venture into the
realm of critical study to try to comprehensively explain these
discrepancies in the available record.
If The New Testament Is Not Scripture Then Why Build A

Doctrine Of Satan From It?
Recognizing the “New Testament” for what it is and what it is not

is certainly an exercise in critical thinking. Accepting “on faith”
that the New Testament is Scripture is not searching out a matter
to prove all things. The New Testament may appear to tell of a
character called “Satan” who is opposed to the Creator and all His
children. If this is in fact the message that comes from the “New
Testament” about Satan, then one only need determine if this is a
doctrine present in the Old Testament. Being that the doctrine of
“Satan” is not in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the “New
374
Testament” is not good for doctrine because it is not Scripture,

then there has to be one of two possible explanations.
The first is that the “New Testament” is making up ideas and
leading people into lies because the writers believed and wrote lies
to deceive. The result is that they did deceive. The second is that
the “New Testament” is misunderstood because we take the Greek
metaphors that were used to explain Hebrew concepts, as being
literal. We generally fail to understand the underlying Hebraic
ideas, meanings, and definitions that are obscured by the Greek
words that have been translated into English. The “New
Testament” is a Greek piece of literature and is simply an excellent
historic testimonial document, representing the attitude of the
day. The concept of Satan jumped from a Biblical Hebraic concept
of an adversarial force coming either from man or from God, to the
place where personified evil was believed to be a physical being of
evil. The jump involved using proper nouns to label an action or
behaviour instead of recognizing the noun or the verb that was
intended to describe that action or behaviour. It’s like saying that a
crazy person is a “loon.” The word describes a behaviour but if we
take it literally then the person whose behavioural patterns are
being described, can be thought to be an actual Loon. We all know
that a Loon is a large somewhat primitive fish-eating diving bird of
the northern hemisphere, having webbed feet placed far back on
its body. But to think of someone as loony or as a Loon does not
mean they are a fish-eating fowl. Consider being filled with love.
To say a person is filled with Love does not mean there is a
physical character called Love that has inhabited their being. It
means they exude loving feelings, behaviours, and characteristics
of kindness and charity. Love is no more a personal entity than is
Satan. Think now if you will about a person filled with Satan in the
same way we think of a person filled with Love. Surely one could
be possessed of Love or possessed of Satan and neither have a
cosmic entity inhabiting their soul. Being “loveonized” means one
is exuding behaviors consistent with love where being “satanized”
or “demonized” is simply a way to explain one exuding behaviors

consistent with anti-good or anti-God behaviors, or adversarial

conditions or illness.
The second of these possibilities allows us to continue to
assess the Apostolic record in its historical, cultural, linguistic, and
social context. Thus enabling us to understand the writings as the
writer intended and as the original hearers would have understood
them. In the coming volumes we will look at this concept more
deeply and explain how many of the common passages used to
teach that a real cosmic “Satan” exists, actually don’t teach that.
We will see how those misused passages uphold the teaching that
comes from the Hebrew Scriptures and in no way identify a literal
Satan. In our next volume, Imagine There’s No Satan In the
Gospels, we will see how the passages that tell of the adversary are
not referring to a cosmic arch-rival of Yahweh. Rather, they are
speaking of either an angelic force coming from God or of the
actions of a human being who opposes another and particularly,
who opposes the will of Yahweh. The most likely situation we will
be presented with as we understand the meaning of certain
references to “satan,” “demons” and other typical terms thought to
be referring to supernatural forces, is not one that includes a literal
Satan. Together we will see that the terms used are references to
the potential inside the human heart that chooses evil instead of
good. All this will be discussed in the next installment of Imagine
There’s No Satan. Until then, enjoy the journey that dismantles a
thousand lies and embrace the freedom you have in a world
without Satan. A world with only One God.
376

378
Bibliography
Imagine There’s No Satan and Satan Christianity’s Other God
by James R. Brayshaw
Published September 2010
1. A Commentary on The Revelation Of John – George Eldon Ladd,

William B. Erdmann Publishing 1972
2. A Guide to The Prophets – Stephen Winward, John Knox Press 1977
3. A Magician Among the Spirits – Harry Houdini, Harper and Brother 1924
4. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible - Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A.,
(1715-1832)
5. Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible - Albert Barnes 1798-1870
6. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations – Philip A. Harland,
Augsburg Fortress 2003
7. Believing In Magic-The Psychology of Superstition – Stuart A. Vyse,
Oxford University Press 1997
8. Bible Guide – Prophets of Israel (1) Isaiah – George Knight, Lutterworth
Press and Abbingdon Press 1961 and 1962
9. Bible Guide – Prophets of Israel (2) Jeremiah and Ezekiel – William Neil,
Lutterworth Press and Abbingdon Press 1964
10. Bloodline of the Holy Grail – Laurence Gardner Fair Winds2002
11. Catechism of the Catholic Faith – Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
Bibliography 379
12. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Robert

Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
13. Encyclopedia Britannica – 15th Edition, William Benton 1943-73 – Helen
Hemingway 173-74
14. Every Prophecy of the Bible – John Walvord, Chariot Victor Publishing 1999
15. Galatians, A Torah Based Commentary on the Book of Galatians – Avi
Ben Mordechai, A Millennium 7000 Publication 2005
16. Gods and the One God – Robert M. Grant, The Westminster Press
Philadelphia 1986
17. Gospel Light – George M. Lamsa edited by James Magiera, A.J. Holman
Co. 1939 & The Aramaic Bible Society 1995
18. How Our Bible Came to Be – H.G.G. Herklots, A Galaxy Book 1954
19. Idioms of the Bible Explained & A Key to The Original Gospels –
George M. Lamsa, Harper Collins 1985 originally published 1931
20. Jesus Through The Centuries – Yaroslav Pelikio, Yale University Press
21. John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible - Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)
22. Josephus The Complete Works – Translated by William Whiston A.M.,
Thomas Nelson Publishers
23. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament -Johann (C.F.) Keil
(1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)
24. Kooks By Donna Kossey, Feral House 1999
25. Occult and Supernatural Phenomenon , D. H. Rawcliffe, Derick Ridgeway
Publishing 1952 (original title) The Psychology of the Occult
26. Origins Of the Synagogue and Church – Kaufman Kholer - posthumously
1929 The Macmillian Company New York
27. Peoples of The Old Testament World – Alfred J. Haerth; Gerald L.
Mattingly; Edwin M. Yamouchi, Baker Books 1994
28. Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition) by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield
(1843-1921)
29. Skeptic - Volume 7 Number 4 1999
30. Surpassing Wonder – Invention of the Bible and Talmuds – Donald
Harmon Akenson, McGill Queens University Press 1998
380
31. Synopsis of the Old and New Testaments - John Nelson Darby (1800 -
1882)
32. Temples and Temple Services in Ancient Israel – Menahem Haran,
Eisenbrauns 1985 2nd print 1995
33. The Bible And the British Museum – Ada R. Habershon, Morgan and Scott
Ltd.1909
34. The Birth Of Satan: Tracing The Devil's Biblical Roots, T.J. Wray and
Gregory Mobley, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005
35. The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation – Wise, Abegg, and Cook,
Harper Collins 1996
36. The Devil – Amelia Wilson, PRC Publishing CO.2002
37. The Element Encyclopedia of Secret Societies – John Michael Greer,
Harper Element 2000
38. The Epic History of Good and Evil,
39. The Essence of the Gnostics – Bernard Simon, Arctarus Publishing Ltd.
2004
40. The History of Magic Volumes 1 and 2 – Joseph Ennemoser, University
Book,1970
41. The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil from the Earliest Times to
the Present Day– Paul Carus, Open Court Publishing Co.1900 and Dover
Books 2008
42. The History of the Devil, G. Messandé, Newell, London, England, 1996
43. The IVP Woman’s Bible Commentary – Katherine Clarke-Kroeger and
Mary J. Evans –Inter Varsity Press 2002
44. The Mentor Dictionary of Theology and The Bible – Richard J. Daigle
and Frederick R. Lapides, New American Library 1973
45. The New Bible Commentary Revised – W.B. Erdmann’s Press, IVP 1970
46. The New Covenant – Commonly Called The New Testament – Vol. 1 –
Willis Barnstone, Riverhead Books NY 2002
Bibliography 381
47. The Old Enemy, Satan And The Combat Myth, Neil Forsyth, Princeton:,
Princeton University Press, 1989
48. The Origin Of Satan - Elaine Pagels, Vintage Books 1996
49. The Prince of Darkness – Jeffrey Burton Russell, Cornell University Press
50. Too Long In the Sun – Richard M. Rives, Partaker Publication 2002
51. Vincent Word Studies - Marvin R. Vincent, D.D.
52. Who Wrote the New Testament- The Making of the Christian Myth –
Burton L. Mack, Harper Collins Publishers 1999
53. Word Pictures in the New Testament - Archibald Thomas Robertson
54. OTHER SOURCES
The number of other sources, including audio, video, internet articles,

periodical articles, digital books, and varied research-based web sites,
are too numerous to list in this bibliography at this time. The amount
of thought and conjecture from literally hundreds of “teachers”,
which directed the author towards a research-based conclusion that
marshals documentary evidence for contentions, is virtually
innumerable and has proven invaluable. The list of which, could take
up a volume in itself.
382
Bibliography 383
384
index
ancient mythological creatures, 331
ancient myths, 176
“ Ancient Near Eastern, 161
“Well what abouts…”, 11, 148 angelology, 14, 249
angels, 45, 163, 165, 169, 257, 260,
326, 342, 344, 347, 349, 353
1 Ante-Nicene Fathers, 109
1 Samuel, 33, 34, 110, 129, 153 Aphrodite,, 332
1Timothy, 42 Apocalypse of Baruch, 168
Apocalyptic Literature,, 169, 174
apocalyptic writings, 159, 169, 174,
2 260, 337
2 Corinthians, 27, 30, 286 Apocrypha, 276, 313
apokoluptos, 342
Apollo, 101, 103, 108
3 Apostles, 7, 17, 110, 158, 183, 184,
189, 192, 193, 195, 203, 207, 215,
33,830 Christian denominations, 218, 224, 227, 228, 235, 294, 300,
367 301, 312, 318, 357, 358, 361, 366,
373
A apostolic succession, 149, 226
Apostolic writings, 15, 179, 180,
Aben Ezra, 100 199, 202, 212, 222, 227, 240, 284,
ablution, 281 291, 292, 294, 335, 354, 357, 358,
adversary, 7, 9, 12, 28, 30, 149, 153, 360, 366, 367
154, 156, 160, 253, 254, 264, 337, Arthur Schopenhauer, 20, 289
376 asleep, 46, 48, 52, 61, 68, 73, 91, 108,
Ahaz, 210, 211, 256 131, 132, 141
Ahriman, 264 assimilation with the pagan
Ahura Mazda, 55, 263 nations, 175
Albert Barnes, 28, 29, 110, 111, 112, Assumption of Moses,, 168
113, 298, 379 Assyria, 37, 157, 160, 298
Alexander the Great, 36, 157, 273, Athanasius
298 Bishop of Babylon, 196, 197, 205,
Alexandrian period, 188, 199 206, 208, 296, 372
Allah, 323, 324, 325 authorial intent, 240
Amalekites, 144 Avi Ben Mordechai, 282, 380
American, 21, 77, 78, 86, 90, 191, awzawzale, 260
231, 381
ancient mysticism, 166
Bibliography 385
B Christians, 13, 46, 53, 167, 169, 187,

188, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200,
Babylon, 7, 37, 121, 160, 162, 196, 204, 208, 229, 262, 265, 276, 281,
208, 258, 259, 298, 330 300, 316, 317, 318, 324, 328, 331,
Balaam, 27, 133, 134, 135, 153 332, 335, 349
baptizo, 254 Church, 68, 104, 190, 194, 195, 196,
Barak Obama, 36, 84 204, 205, 225, 243, 244, 245, 248,
Beelzebub, 261, 262, 265 283, 294, 304, 316, 318, 338, 369,
Belial, 254, 255, 256, 258, 261 380
Beliar, 254 Church Fathers, 248
Believing in Magic, 38, 39, 86 CIA, 78
Believing in Magic, The Cicero, 65
Psychology of Superstition, 38, circumcision, 282
39, 86 Clement of Rome, 296
Benedict Arnold, 256 CNN, 127
Bereans, 17, 68, 358, 360 Cold Reading, 36, 83, 87, 88, 89, 91,
bibliolater, 229 111, 126, 140
biblion, 350, 351 covenant breaking, 191
Birth of the Devil, 254 Cyrus, 244, 380
Book of Enoch, 157, 164, 167
bright morning star, 258, 259, 331
Burton L. Mack D
Mack, Burton, 196, 197, 382 daemon, 310, 311, 320
DAHKMA-NASHINI, 52, 53
C daimon, 269, 271, 310, 311, 320,
321, 325, 326
called out assembly, 294 David, 9, 12, 13, 44, 78, 93, 95, 117,
Catholic, 161, 167, 195, 196, 204, 128, 145, 146, 297, 300, 363, 380
206, 207, 208, 222, 229, 248, 283, David Christiansan, 78
289, 297, 300, 316, 369, 370, 379 Day of Judgment,, 261
Catholic Bible, 206, 208 daystar, 7
Catholicism, 229, 263 Dead Sea Scrolls, 163, 255, 381
celibacy, 229 DEMON/DAIMON/DAEMON,
charismatic, 24, 31 309
Chazan, 345, 346, 347 demonic, 31, 95, 103, 147, 149, 166,
Christian Bible, 183, 184, 186, 195, 188, 253, 312
196, 283 demonology, 14, 45, 163, 165, 172,
Christianity, 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17, 247, 248, 262, 263, 268, 269, 271,
20, 22, 44, 45, 47, 51, 53, 55, 63, 272, 274, 276, 311, 316, 319, 327,
65, 67, 68, 109, 153, 158, 161, 164, 328, 335
165, 169, 172, 174, 185, 186, 190, demons, 5, 11, 13, 24, 25, 28, 31, 96,
192, 198, 201, 202, 204, 207, 208, 154, 155, 161, 169, 176, 247, 250,
218, 219, 223, 226, 228, 241, 243, 257, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265, 269,
246, 247, 251, 253, 254, 263, 269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 309,
273, 274, 276, 277, 294, 307, 309, 311, 314, 317, 318, 319, 320, 322,
311, 314, 315, 316, 317, 324, 328, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 332, 333,
329, 353, 357, 360, 361, 371, 379, 334, 376
393
386
Imagine There’s No Satan – Volume II of Satan Christianity’s
Other God
By James R. Brayshaw copyright 2010 www.imaginenosatan.com
Deuteronomy, 38, 47, 97, 98, 99, F
161, 162, 209, 255, 350, 351
devil worshipping, 300 false apostles, 305
diabolos, 240 familiar spirit, 24, 33, 34, 40, 83, 86,
Dionne Warwick, 81, 82 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 102, 103, 106,
divination, 38, 98, 106, 107, 120, 107, 108, 111, 117, 118, 120, 126,
121, 122, 123, 125, 136, 310 127, 129, 138, 139, 147, 150
doctrinal error, 361 familiar spirits, 95, 112
Domitian, 192 FBI, 77
Donald Harmon Akenson, 194, 339, feasts of Yahweh.”, 61
380 Ferguson on Demons/Daimones,
dragon, 15, 330, 335, 343, 348, 349, 326
354, 355 Festival of Trumpets, 61
dualism, 270, 271, 274, 276, 315 First Clement
dualistic religion, 244 Clement, 296
Flim Flam, 220
folk tales, 176
E foul daimones, 332
Easter Bunny, 333 Francis A. Beffert, 254
ecclesia, 294
ecclesiastical authority, 15, 207, G
222, 319, 372
Edgar Cayce, 89 Galatians, A Torah-Based
Egyptian book of the dead, 65 Commentary in First century
Elaine Pagels Hebraic Context, 282
Pagels, Elaine, 332, 370, 382 Genesis, 46, 69, 70, 71, 72, 166, 209
Elijah, 43, 44, 68, 132, 133 Gentiles, 105, 165, 187, 188, 189, 314
Ellen DeGeneres German philosopher, 20, 289
Degeneres, Ellen, 172 Gilboa, 127, 128, 129
Empedocles, 270, 271 Gnostic, 21, 158, 164, 165, 168, 169,
Endor, 13, 24, 37, 56, 74, 93, 94, 102, 195, 202, 329, 365, 371
108, 126, 127, 129, 148, 149 Gnosticism, 110, 164, 198, 312
Ennemoser, Joseph, 45, 120, 123, God caused David to count the
125, 126, 162, 163, 269, 270, 271, tribes, 9
272, 273, 274, 315, 316, 317, 347, God’s festivals, 61, 301
348, 381 gods of the heathen, 124
Enoch, 43, 69, 70, 71, 72, 156, 159, good for doctrine, 228, 302, 313,
164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 254, 260, 335, 359, 375
268 Gospel of Judas, 370, 371, 372
Epic History of Good and Evil, 162, grand hailing sign of distress, 198
329, 330, 381 Grant R. Jeffries, 232
Epistles, 185, 205, 296, 297, 299, grave, 56, 57, 58, 61, 74, 80, 91, 108,
303, 357 113, 132, 150
esoteric knowledge, 198 Greco-Roman, 64, 107, 186, 247,
Essenes, 51, 163, 170, 246 267, 276, 321, 322
eudemons, 309 Greece, 37, 160, 298, 316, 332
Eusebius, 196, 300 Greek Divination, 106
exile of the Jews, 14 Greek metaphors, 375
387
Greek view, 169 hyper-spiritual crowd, 255
H I
halakah Illumina Bible, 141
means to walk, 275 imaginary friend, 331
Heaven, 7, 12, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, Imagine There’s No Satan, 1, 5, 6,
48, 50, 51, 52, 58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 22, 153, 251, 282, 335, 376, 393
67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 91, 141, 166, Immortal Soul Doctrine, 51, 52, 53,
172, 175, 180, 181, 190, 233, 248, 56, 59, 67, 109, 243
263, 276, 287, 291, 329, 340, 342, immortality of the soul, 64, 163
363, 366 India, 160, 162, 249
Hebraic perspective, 203, 287, 333, intercessory, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31
352 intercessory prayer, 24, 25, 28, 30,
Hebraic thought, 318 31
Hebrew Scriptures, 7, 14, 16, 17, 67, internet, 17, 18, 19, 248, 382
149, 154, 157, 179, 180, 181, 182, intertestamental, 14, 158, 160, 268
184, 186, 194, 196, 198, 199, 201, inter-testamental period, 154, 164,
203, 206, 209, 211, 213, 214, 224, 175, 261, 267, 268, 275
225, 227, 228, 232, 236, 237, 253, Irenaeus, 200, 202, 203, 370, 371
255, 262, 267, 276, 288, 290, 294, Isaac Asimov, 86, 87
302, 305, 311, 312, 319, 323, 332,
337, 342, 344, 350, 351, 353, 357,
358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, J
366, 367, 368, 369, 374, 376 James K. Walker, 81
helel, 259 James Randi
Hell, 6, 11, 14, 30, 41, 57, 58, 67, 91, Randi, 92, 220
141, 172, 175, 243, 248 James Van Praagh, 89
Hellenistic, 168, 171, 243, 310 Jamniah council, 206
Hellenized Jews, 160, 175, 208, 263, Jerome, 29, 206, 259
319 Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, 206
Herodians, 51 Jesus, 3, 11, 12, 25, 47, 58, 91, 153,
High Priest, 93, 118, 153, 180, 260, 188, 190, 194, 195, 198, 201, 205,
297 212, 217, 224, 233, 249, 250, 285,
Hindus, 271 286, 287, 288, 294, 295, 296, 299,
History of the Devil, 157, 164, 165, 302, 306, 313, 323, 339, 341, 345,
264, 265, 381 349, 358, 364, 365, 371, 374, 380
Hitler, 234 Jewish Encyclopaedia, 257, 260
Holy Writ, 184, 225, 227, 228, 306 Jewishness, 15, 201, 205, 339
homosexuality, 172, 173, 174 John, 27, 42, 59, 62, 88, 98, 99, 100,
homosexuality in TV shows, 173 101, 103, 185, 188, 189, 196, 197,
Horace, 316 205, 208, 212, 213, 227, 235, 259,
Hornblower on Daimones, 325 293, 299, 304, 335, 337, 341, 342,
hot reading, 89, 111 343, 344, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351,
house of Israel, 182, 191 352, 353, 354, 355, 358, 361, 365,
house of Judah, 191 374, 379, 380, 381
HowStuffWorks.com, 132 John Edward, 89
human adversary, 7, 153, 253
388
Other God
John Gill, 27, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, medium, 13, 24, 37, 40, 85, 86, 97,
299, 304, 347, 380 108, 111, 118, 119, 128, 130, 138,
Judaism, 14, 53, 65, 66, 161, 243, 140, 142
246, 247, 249, 263, 269, 275, 276, memoirs of the apostles, 199, 200,
289, 309, 311, 314, 321, 328 227, 297
Judaizers, 281 messenger, 26, 27, 28, 30, 153, 337,
Justin Martyr, 199, 200, 227, 297 341, 342, 347, 351, 368
Messiah, 15, 17, 42, 43, 45, 51, 52,
57, 58, 61, 62, 68, 69, 101, 104,
K 133, 145, 153, 155, 157, 165, 169,
Kabbalistic Philosophy, 161 179, 183, 185, 188, 189, 190, 191,
kakodemons, 309 193, 194, 198, 199, 207, 208, 212,
Kaufman Kohler, 243 215, 217, 223, 224, 227, 228, 235,
Keil & Delitzsch, 124, 380 240, 276, 281, 284, 285, 287, 288,
King Saul, 8, 40, 56, 106, 111, 141, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 298,
146, 149, 150 301, 305, 312, 313, 314, 316, 321,
337, 340, 345, 348, 353, 357, 358,
359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366,
L 367, 369, 373
lake of fire, 58, 59, 60, 261 Messianic King, 335
Lamech, 72 Messianics, 13, 229
Laodiceans, 226, 284 Methurgeman, 345, 346
Larry King Live, 79 Miracles, 317
Last Trump, 61 Mithra, 55
last trumpet, 61 monsters, 32, 335
Law, 137, 180, 182, 186, 191, 207, Mount Horeb, 161
208, 224, 244, 346 Muslim, 323, 324
Lazarus, 48, 50, 52, 61, 68, 91, 132 mythological images, 337
legion, 318
Leviathan, 330 N
light bringer, 7
Limbo, 41 National Geographic, 370, 372
Lizzy, 135 Nebuchadnezzar, 258
Lord of Darkness, 329 necromancy, 35, 74, 98, 106
Neil Forsyth
Forsyth, Neil, 159, 268, 382
M nephesh, 109, 110
magical powers, 96 New Testament, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 14, 15,
Mannasseh, 256 16, 60, 61, 96, 109, 132, 149, 153,
manumission, 281 154, 155, 156, 157, 166, 179, 180,
Marcion, 180, 194, 195, 196, 198, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188,
200, 201, 202, 203, 205 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195,
Marcion’s Gospel, 201 196, 197, 198, 199, 202, 203, 204,
Marcionism, 194, 198 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 214,
Mastema, 254, 261, 264, 268 215, 217, 218, 219, 222, 223, 224,
225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231,
232, 235, 236, 237, 239, 240, 253,
276, 280, 281, 282, 284, 287, 288,
389
289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, Platonic thought, 311
297, 301, 302, 305, 306, 307, 310, Pope, 206, 229
311, 312, 313, 314, 322, 325, 332,
postexilic religious system, 275
333, 335, 336, 339, 342, 344, 347,
prayer, 5, 25, 26, 30, 36, 48, 54, 55,
348, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362,
100, 149
363, 364, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370,
predict the future, 124
372, 373, 374, 375, 381, 382, 393
President, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 77
New Testament is not Scripture,
progressive revelation, 311, 312,
189, 228, 369
314
number of active demons, 263
prophecies, 232, 233, 235, 288, 342
prophecy, 7, 36, 96, 108, 191, 232,
O 234, 235, 293, 302, 305, 312, 319,
341, 350, 351
ob, 33, 93, 106, 107, 138 Prophet of Israel, 34
Obama, 36, 37, 85 Pseudepigraphic writings, 174
Obeah, 125 psychic, 24, 35, 40, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81,
Old Testament, is a Holy 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91,
Document, 363 92, 111, 117, 118, 126, 128, 135,
Origen, 109, 300 136, 138, 142, 145
Origen De Principiis, 109 Psychic Friends Network, 81, 82
purgatory, 41
P Python, 99, 100, 101, 102
P.T. Barnum, 90
pagan religion, 192, 327 R
Pan, 329, 330, 331
Rabbinic, 26, 263
Papacy, 229
Reagan, 37, 38, 39, 40, 77
paranormal, 77, 79, 80, 83, 85, 91,
remote viewer, 77
92
renewed covenant, 191, 192
Parsi, 243, 245, 248
resurrection, 23, 42, 47, 48, 51, 52,
pastor, 17
57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 67, 68, 69, 71,
Paul Carus
72, 74, 110, 131, 141, 185, 191,
Carus, Paul, 155, 157, 158, 164,
199, 213, 249, 276, 285, 292, 357,
165, 264, 265, 381
358, 360
Pentecostal, 24
Rhabdocy, 120
Persia, 8, 37, 160, 162, 170, 198, 244,
Roman Catholic, 289
262, 263, 267, 271, 272
Roman Empire, 21, 163, 176, 192,
Persian Magi, 243, 245, 248
207, 271, 286, 292
Pharisees, 3, 51, 164, 207, 243, Roman religious system, 15
244, 245, 248, 250, 255, 262, 263, Rome, 37, 180, 192, 194, 198, 205,
267 257, 281, 285, 292, 295, 296, 298,
Philistines, 33, 35, 93, 94, 95, 117, 316, 319, 332, 348, 349
118, 125, 127, 128, 129, 138, 140, Rosh Hashanah, 61
143, 146, 147 ruach, 46
Philo, 171, 188, 368 Russian, 39, 77, 86
Plato, 64, 171, 243, 271, 325, 326,
327, 328, 329
390
Other God
S Superstition, 273
Surpassing Wonder, The
Sabbath, 187, 189, 295, 301, 346 Invention of the Bible and the
Sacha Stern, 62 Talmuds,, 194
Sadducees, 51, 164, 245, 246, 247, Sylvia Browne, 89
248 symbolic elements, 337, 354
sages, 45, 288 syncretism, 65, 175, 316
salvation of Yah, 288
Samuel, 9, 12, 13, 23, 24, 33, 34, 35,
37, 40, 56, 74, 93, 94, 95, 108, 109,
T
110, 118, 123, 130, 131, 133, 135, Taitian, 202
136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, Talmud, 262, 275, 313
143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, Targum, 100
153, 209 territorial spirit, 30
Santa Clause, 231, 333 Tertullian, 29, 102, 183, 195, 318
satanas, 153, 240, 253 The Amazing Randi
Satanology, 307 Randi, James, 92
satyr, 329, 330 the beast, 335
sawtawn, 7, 9, 23, 153, 156, 253, 276 The Case for Christ, 288
scribo, 183 the false prophet, 335
second death, 57, 58, 60, 68, 69 The History of Magic, 45, 123, 126,
Secrets of Zoroastrianism, 248 162, 163, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274,
seductive influence, 277 315, 317, 348, 381
Septuagint, 35, 93, 99, 102, 106, 112, The Immortal Soul Doctrine, 51,
118, 204, 206, 259, 310, 311 109
serpent, 10, 27, 101, 125, 134, 257, The Old Enemy, 159, 268, 382
335, 354, 355 The Old Enemy, Satan and the
serpent”, 10 Combat Myth, 159
Set, 155, 156, 162, 264 The Origin of Satan, 332
Shemihazah, 167, 168 the pit, 11, 57, 91
sheol, 57, 91 The Psychology of Superstition,
Sheol, 57, 136, 265 379
Shotgunning, 89 The Word of the LORD, 209, 211
Solomon, 57, 74, 206 things God does, 36, 265
spacecraft, 79 to break down strongholds, 30
spirit of divination, 98, 99, 101, 107 tongues, 17
spirit world, 24, 55, 63, 169, 175 Tooth Fairy, 333
spirits, 13, 14, 30, 31, 34, 38, 40, 54, Torah, 47, 52, 137, 155, 181, 183,
62, 63, 64, 81, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 186, 187, 188, 190, 198, 208, 209,
99, 108, 111, 112, 127, 128, 130, 214, 223, 224, 225, 227, 240, 245,
131, 133, 136, 137, 139, 145, 149, 255, 275, 281, 282, 290, 294, 301,
150, 160, 175, 219, 272, 273, 315, 340, 342, 349, 350, 351, 357, 373,
316, 317, 319, 328 380
spiritual warfare, 25, 26, 30, 31, 145 two-edged sword, 303, 340
Stanley J. Wojocik, 220
Stuart A. Vyse, 38, 379
super-demon, 155
U
supernatural abilities, 82, 92, 98 Universal church, 318
391
Upton Winifred Sinclair Jr, 21 Y

Urim and Thummim, 93, 118, 119
Yahweh, 8, 9, 15, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35,
42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 57,
V 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 71, 80,
Valentinus, 202 86, 93, 96, 97, 98, 105, 106, 108,
ventriloquism, 35, 111, 122, 141, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128,
146 131, 133, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142,
ventriloquist, 33, 35, 37, 93, 98, 102, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150,
107, 112, 139, 147, 149, 150 153, 158, 160, 161, 168, 170, 175,
visions, 31, 133, 134, 159, 170, 330, 176, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187,
337, 340, 342, 352, 353 188, 191, 205, 208, 211, 213, 214,
222, 225, 234, 235, 237, 244, 254,
255, 256, 258, 259, 261, 263, 264,
W 265, 266, 267, 274, 288, 291, 294,
W. R. Halliday, 106 302, 305, 311, 312, 319, 323, 324,
watchman.org, 81 334, 342, 348, 350, 351, 354, 361,
Water dowsing, 220 363, 366, 376
Well what abouts, 11, 148 Yeshua, 15, 42, 48, 51, 60, 69, 91, 95,
Where do the dead go, 40 132, 180, 181, 190, 191, 192, 193,
where the dead go, 14, 48, 56 194, 203, 207, 212, 213, 219, 225,
willingness to believe, 84 228, 239, 281, 282, 287, 288, 290,
witch, 13, 23, 24, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 291, 292, 305, 307, 312, 313, 316,
56, 74, 86, 91, 93, 98, 108, 110, 337, 340, 347, 348, 349, 352, 353,
123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 358, 360, 362, 364, 365, 366, 368,
133, 137, 138, 141, 148, 149, 150, 373
317
witch of Endor, 13, 23, 25, 33, 36, Z
37, 56, 74, 86, 91, 110, 125, 129,
141, 148, 149, 150 Zarathustra, 52
witchcraft, 93, 96, 111, 119, 125, Zealots,, 51
126, 127, 128, 130, 144, 261 Zeus, 332
wizardry, 98 Zoroastrian, 53, 54, 55, 244, 249,
woman with the familiar spirit, 250, 263, 274
127, 147, 150 Zoroastrians, 53, 54
World Christian Encyclopaedia,
367
392
Other God
Imagine
There’s No
Satan
How Satan Got Into
The New Testament
Volume II of
By James R. Brayshaw
Copyright
September 2010
SCOG Publishing
jrbrayshaw@scog.ca
www.scog.ca
393
James R. Brayshaw
394

Imagine Theres No Satan - How Satan Got PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Imagine Theres No Satan - How Satan Got PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Imagine

Imagine There’s No Satan

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any Web addresses or

find Satan in our culture is in the churches. The intensity with

Testament. How it is possible and valuable to begin to separate

In Volume I of Satan Christianity’s Other God, great care

the use of the term “Before the Lord” elsewhere in Scripture. We

nuances surrounding each concept. This four volume series begins

Did Satan Or Did God Cause David To Break The Rules?

One of the profound apparent contradictions in the Scriptures was

put forward, and it was determined that either the writer of

bringing to light more questions that need to be answered.

What Will We Learn In Volume II?

The “Well What Abouts…”

understood by them the way they have understood it in the past.

Me: “Jack if there is a Satan as so many of us believe, why

Jack: “Well what about when Job’s family is destroyed by

Jack: “Well what about when Jesus was tempted by Satan

Well what about the appearance of Satan in the garden…

Without ever being allowed to fully answer any of Jack’s

When Did Thinking Become So Mystical?

This second Volume of Satan Christianity’s Other God, will

Discussing What The New Testament Is

A huge piece of fat we will chew on in the following pages is one

to the Bible and to call it Scripture? Not likely! However,

Old Testament that Yeshua was the Messiah. If the reader is

Explaining Every Passage About Satan

Volumes 3 and 4 of this work will provide a catalogue of every

successive volumes share a verse-by-verse, understanding of what

A Little Encouragement To Seek Answers For Your

When we are part of a culture that so deeply is looking for

But I’m Not A Theology Student Some Might Say!

or deepen their understanding on a topic or issue. Although, it

issue. Besides the Scriptures and History books, encyclopedias and

Ask Questions, Seek Answers, And Take Your Time

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.

Part of my experience in organized religion has revealed

What Do You Have To Lose By Learning Satan is Not

Many of us believe we stand to lose something if we realize our

one of the best investigative journalists of his era. He understood

“It’s difficult to get a man to understand

Perhaps your salary doesn’t depend on whether or not you

CHAPTER 1 – Can A Witch Raise A Dead Spirit? 23

I too used to think of Saul consulting a medium as evidence

These roads will include;

-Speaking about my personal past experience as an

-Understanding where we go when we are dead to help us

-Understanding modern day spiritists and the façade they

-We will go down the road of asking the question of why we

Once we have looked at those few areas of interest, we will

If Satan Exists, Why Is He Not Bound By All The Prayers

The above question was posed to me recently and I thought it was

CHAPTER 1 – Can A Witch Raise A Dead Spirit? 25

The bread of affliction and water of adversity mentioned by

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance

John Gill has a lengthy bit of commentary on this passage.

…it was usual with the Jews to call

"R. Hona (c), as he was preaching to the

CHAPTER 1 – Can A Witch Raise A Dead Spirit? 27

According to historical usage of the phrase, we have Paul

There are mountains of speculation as to what Paul’s thorn in

Every one who has become familiar with