1 John 2:1-6

[Hidden In Him]

Preaching Another Jesus: Satan's End-Time Attack On Holiness


         

     What sort of "Jesus" would Satan create if he wanted to reinvent our Lord in a different image? For anyone just joining this series, I encourage you to read the Introduction study first. It contains confirmations that the heresy being addressed in this letter was Gnosticism, which sets the context for the entire letter. I will cite yet another passage in this study that adds further confirmation, but the Intro study is designed to start the reader off with a clear understanding of who John was writing about.
     We are now in Chapter 2, and I will quote the passage first before explaining it:

     Little children, I write these things to you that you may not sin, and if anyone should sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. And He is the propitiation for our sins, yet not ours only but also for the whole world. And by this we know that we have known Him: If we keep His commandments. The one saying, "I have known Him" yet not keeping His commandments is a lair, and the truth is not in him. But whosoever may keep His word, in him truly has the love of God become perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: The one professing to abide in Him ought to walk even as that one Himself also walked. (1 John 2:1-6)

     By referring to Jesus as "a propitiation; not ours only, but the whole world," John meant that He was a propitiation not just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles, and in fact for the whole world. So what then did Jesus make possible by becoming a propitiation for all man's sins? Was it just to go to Heaven when they died? The Jewish religion offered something the Gentile religions did not: The promise of a resurrection from the dead. This is what the True Jesus fulfilled when He Himself was resurrected from the dead after the crucifixion. Thus, the offer now being made to the Gentiles was that, just like Jesus, the Jewish God could ultimately give eternal life in the flesh to those who believed in Him, and that the earth would eventually be restored to Paradise as it once was in the Garden as well.
     This was NOT something Satan wanted published. It effectively undid EVERYTHING he sought to accomplish by luring Adam and Eve to their deaths. And not only did such a gospel promise to undo the physical death that began in the Garden, but restore the earth as it was before the fall, before he corrupted it through deception. Thus, Satan had to reinvent Jesus into someone who only came in spirit, not in the flesh, and had not resurrected from the dead nor suffered crucifixion as a propitiation for mankind's sins.
     As John will point out by Chapter 4, this is exactly what the Gnostics were teaching:

     Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits if they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not so confess Jesus is not of God. (1 John 4:1-2)

     This was an umnmistakably Gnostic teaching. As one source confirms, according to the Gnostics, Jesus and "Christ" were two separate entities, and the Christ came and went from Jesus as He pleased:

     Most Gnostics believed that Christ was a divine emissary from above, totally spirit, and that he entered the man Jesus temporarily in order to convey the knowledge that can liberate sparks from their material imprisonment. [...] At the baptism, Christ entered into Jesus (in the form of a dove, as in the New Testament Gospels); and at the end he left him to suffer his death alone. That is why Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (literally, "Why have you left me behind?")... According to one of the myths reported by Irenaeus, once Jesus had died, the Christ then came back and raised him from the dead.” (Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 2003).

     This is confirmed by the ancient sources. Christ was supposedly "incorporeal" and thus descended upon whomsoever He chose and took whatever form he chose, most certainly never dying on a cross personally. As Basilides taught:

     Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, namely that which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews, and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him... But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that the nations would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance from the power of those angels who made the world upon them that believe in him. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, XXVI, 4.)

     So far this was typical Gnostic heresy. The Old Testament God was supposedly just an angel, and like the rest of this world's gods - those of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, etc - he wanted to rule the world through His people. Because of this, these other gods resisted this, and urged their nations to fight against his.
     Never mind the fact that the Old Testament was not merely angel but created the entire angelic host; this was something the Gnostics conveniently dismissed out of hand because it didn't fit in well with their narrative. But the Gnostics were now rewriting history so they could create out of thing air a much higher god that none of this world's gods knew anything about, including the Old Testament God of the Jews.
     So what then about this new "Jesus" who descended from a supposedly much higher god?

     [Jesus] did not suffer death himself, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter man, being transfigured by him that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power and the mind of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of and was invisible to all... If any one, therefore, confesses the crucified [Christ], that man is still a slave to those angelic beings who created our bodies, but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, XXVI, 4.)

     Can't you just feel the love! This the difference between the two religions in a nutshell; the Son of the Old Testament God is portrayed as being a propitiation for man's sins and dying on behalf of humanity, laying down his life so that they might ascend to Heaven when they died. Moreover, He had now paved the way for them to be resurrected from the dead when He returned to establish His kingdom on earth. The son of the Gnostic god made no such offer, and instead of dying for the sins of man in self-sacrifice, coerced some innocent soul into being crucified in his place, assumed the form of the innocent man and stood laughing at humanity for being non-the-wiser when they crucified someone in his place thinking it was him. In reality, this was just self-serving sorcerers making up a god in their own image, having been inspired to by the Devil himself.


The Gnostic "Christ": Profligate, Filthy And Impure

     John referred to Him as "Jesus Christ the Righteous," who was "the propitiation for our sins." This is consistent with the New Testament teaching, which described Him as the spotless Lamb of God, who had been slain for the sins of mankind. This is the Christ John was referring to when he said we "ought to walk even as He walked," i.e. in holiness.
     The Gnostic Jesus was something entirely different, however. Knowing the disciples were called to walk even as their master had walked, Satan knew he had to completely reinvent Christ's character. Thus, according to Irenaeus, Satan used Simon the magician to present a completely different "Christ" to the nations. Claiming to have manifested himself as "the Son of God" in Judea, Simon made "the Christ" out to be the founder of a sex religion. To this end, he is said to have performed initiation rites in the presence of his followers, together with the help of a prostitute he purchased from slavery in Tyre.

     [Simon] represented himself, in a word, as being the loftiest of all powers, that is, the Being who is the Father over all, and he allowed himself to be called by whatsoever title men were pleased to address him. Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all sorts of heresies derive their origin, formed his sect out of the following materials: Having redeemed from slavery at Tyre, a city in Phoenicia, a certain woman named Helena, he was in the habit of carrying her about with him, declaring that this woman was the first conception of his mind, the Mother of all, by whom in the beginning he conceived of forming angels and archangels... the mystic priests belonging to this sect both lead profligate lives and practice magical arts, each one to the extent of his ability. They use exorcisms and incantations. Love-potions, too, and charms, as well as those beings who are called “Paredri” (familiars) and “Oniropompi” (dream-senders), and whatever other curious arts can be had recourse to are eagerly pressed into their service. They also have an image of Simon fashioned after the likeness of Jupiter, and another of Helena in the shape of Minerva, and these they worship. In fine, they have a name derived from Simon, the author of these most impious doctrines, being called Simonians, and from them “knowledge (i.e. Gnosis), falsely so called,” received its beginning, as one may learn even from their own assertions. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, XXV, 2, 4)

     That the followers of Simon led profligate, sexually immoral lives gives insight into what Simon and Helena were apparently encouraging them to engage in. As is also stated by other sources:

     Simon Magus, who taught that his prostitute Helena was the Holy Spirit, instituted certain foul and infamous mysteries inexpressibly filthy, and had assemblies equally filthy to celebrate them, these being the Mysteries of Life and of the most perfect Gnosis... (Lavington, The Moravians Compared And Detected, as quoted by Queenborough in Occult Theocracy, P.119)

     Thus it appears Simon purchased Helena for the specific purpose of performing sex rituals with her before his followers, to "initiate" them into the mysteries of the "kingdom of God." Never mind that New Testament teaching stated that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one flesh with her, and thus spiritually impure. Truth be known, considering the demons he was infested with, Simon likely made Helena far more impure than the other way around.
     Whatever the case, the Gnostic sects who adopted Simon's heresy all emulated similar behavior, likewise justifying it under the guise of supposedly now possessing greater spiritual "knowledge":

     Such was the excellency of their knowledge and illumination who arrogantly styled themselves "Gnostics" that they are superior to Peter or Paul or any of Christ's other disciples. They alone have drunk up the supreme knowledge, are above principalities and powers, and [thus] secure of salvation. And for that very reason they are free to debauch women or indulge in all manner of licentiousness. This knowledge is of itself perfect "redemption," and sufficient... [others] taught sexual incontinence to be obligatory as a law, and not only lawful but necessary unto salvation, not only compatible with the Savior's religion but an essential part of it... Prodicus added to the tenets of Carpocrates that fornication ought to be open and public, and the use of women common, for which reason in their feasts, when the candles were extinguished, each lay with the women as chance appointed and they called this lasciviousness a "mystical initiation," a "mystical communion"... The banquet being over, the man would say to the woman, "Arise and show your love to a brother," so they proceed to copulation. Some of them, by a most horrible abuse of scripture, apply the words, "Give to everyone who asks you" towards enticing the women... Both Epiphanius and Irenaeus before him say of the founder of the Nicolaitans, "Being ashamed of his own remissness, he audaciously pronounced that that no one who was not lascivious every day could be a partaker of eternal life." Therefore, after a debauchery those Gnostics were used to boasting of their happiness as having done a meritorious thing, and when they had had their will on a complying female, they told her she was now a "pure virgin," though she was daily corrupted... [Thus] they esteemed copulation as a most sacred mystery, known only to themselves, which the profane were not allowed to put into practice; what was abominable in others being highly virtuous in themselves... (Lavington, The Moravians Compared And Detected, as quoted by Queenborough in Occult Theocracy, P.119-122)
 

Returning The Dogs To Their Vomit Again

     So where are we today? The Gnostics are reemerging on the religious landscape of the West, and once again proclaiming a far different "Christ" than the One described in the pages of scripture. With this, it appears the warnings of the apostle Peter are slowly becoming relevant once more. Those who desire a sexually filthy Christ are now having one provided for them once again:

     And many will follow their sexually licentious ways, through whom the way of truth will be blasphemed… These are spots and blemishes, lounging about with deceitful intentions while feasting together among you, having eyes preoccupied with an adulteress and with incessant sin, alluring unstable souls, having a heart that's become trained upon sexual covetousness, accursed children… For if having once escaped the corruption that is in the world through the recognition of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ but again getting entangled in these things they are subdued, their last state has become worse than the first. For it was better for them not to have recognized the way of righteousness than having recognized it to have turned from the holy commandant given unto them. But a realization of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog has returned to his own vomit, and the sow once washed to rolling in the mire. (2 Peter 2:2, 13-14, 21-22)

     Today just as they did 2,000 years ago, modern Gnostics make Jesus out to have been the founder of a sex religion. In television documentaries and books, it is now also taught that Jesus engaged in homoerotic sexual rites. Mary Magdalene is frequently cited as the first to engage in "mystical communion" with Jesus in private. Another Gnostic writer even perverts the passage in John 12:1-8 to suggest that when the woman "anointed him with oil" it was to prepare him for a private ceremony, and carried sexual connotations:

     Spikenard, the ruinously expensive perfume that she used to Christ-en Jesus, was used extensively in the sacred marriages and other sexual rites of the ancient Oriental systems… In the traditional form of sacred marriage, the hieros games, the priestess/queen/goddess also anoints the priest/king/god with oil on the genitals as preparation for ritual horasis [i.e. sex]. Behind the male disciples' concern for the wasted money and the plight of the poor, was there another reason for their distaste at this ritual? Clearly the anointing of Jesus' feet… took place in front of them, but the climax of the ceremony might have been a matter for closed doors, and a great deal of muttered conjecture. (Picknett, Secret History of Lucifer, P.74-76)

     Even more perverse is what they have done with Lazarus, whom scripture says Jesus raised from the dead. Speaking of what supposedly took place after that event, one television documentary in citing the falsely so-called "the Secret Gospel of Mark" states as follows:

     "Jesus… stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. When it was late, the young man went to him. He had put a linen around his naked body, and he remained with him through that night. For Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God." What is this secret of the kingdom of God that Jesus reveals to this young man? What kind of relationship did Jesus have with this young man? Of course, it gets very controversial. He goes to Jesus wearing nothing but a linen cloak, and they spend the night together. This text does seem to have some homoerotic undertones. (Banned From The Bible II, Secret Gospel of Mark, A History Channel DVD Series)

     From there, it is only a small step to claiming Jesus also initiated the disciples into these same sex rituals. Citing Dr. Morton Smith, the discoverer of this supposed document, Picknett showed no fear in insinuating Jesus likewise practiced "homoerotic" sexual rites with the disciples as well:

     … Professor Smith himself had no doubts about Jesus' "libertine circle," and the possibility that his followers were admitted "singly [i.e. one at a time] and by night, to the mystery of the kingdom, by certain ceremonies derived from ancient erotic magic"… presumably masturbation, possibly prior to other sexual rituals… Professor Smith surmised that "Freedom from the [Jewish] law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union." (Picknett, Secret History of Lucifer, P.70)

     With this perverted theology, practicing homosexuals can claim they abide "in Christ" and are walking as Christ Himself also walked by engaging in homosexual acts. With this perverted theology, practicing adulterers and adulteresses can also say they are walking as Christ walked when they commit adultery. When the time comes for Gnosticism to fully take hold, we can only expect that they will return to the same orgies they engaged in long ago, including homosexual ones this time. Thus, it is not a stretch to say that they will in effect be practicing Satanism in the name of Christianity. It is for these reasons that holiness must remain one of the primary things that distinguishes true Christians from Gnostics, just as John was teaching in this first epistle. This is the way the True Jesus walked, and it is the way true Christians must continue to walk as well.