The images of the Devil were passed off as images of the saints

The images of the Devil were passed off as images of the saints█

From Mars to Saint Michael: How the Roman Empire Gave Its Statues Wings: the image of the Devil was passed off as the image of the saint.

[BLOCK 1 – THE ORIGIN OF ICONOGRAPHY AND THE PROHIBITION]

We have been told over and over again that this image represents good and evil: on the right, Jesus; on the left, the devil. We were taught that evil is the dark-skinned man with short hair, while good is the white-skinned man with long hair and a halo or solar crown over his head.

But before taking this for granted, ask yourself a key question: where does this version of events actually come from?

It comes from the Roman Empire and from the ecclesiastical structure that inherited its power. The same empire that executed Jesus openly worshiped solar gods.

This is where the logic breaks down. There are ancient texts such as Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 4 that establish a clear and categorical prohibition: do not worship or bow down before any representation, whether of the heavens, the earth, men, the sun, or the moon.

If the Roman Empire worshiped the sun, persecuted the original message, and then built the official Church… why should we assume that its conversion was sincere? If today people are required to bow before representations and elements that directly replicate solar symbolism, are we not seeing exactly the same imperial worship, but under a different name?

The text of Habakkuk 2 puts it with devastating clarity: What good is a mute image? Can it possibly teach anything?

A sculpture or a painting does not hear, does not understand, and has no spirit. The prohibition against worshiping them is not a blind dogma; it is a rational position. An image cannot do anything for you.

This does not mean accepting as valid everything that has survived to the present day. If these texts passed for centuries through the filter and editing of imperial hands, textual manipulation is not merely a possibility: it is a historical certainty. They rewrote the accounts of their time and retouched the oldest writings to consolidate their power.

[BLOCK 2 – THE CONTRADICTION OF LONG HAIR]

Let us clarify something fundamental: this is not about defending the biblical text or assuming that everything it contains is authentic. History shows that the manuscript that reached us passed through filters and interpolations to align with the interests of imperial power. However, even within these texts, their own logic exposes the cracks in the visual tradition that was sold to us.

Let us take the representation of long hair as an example. Official iconography portrayed a long-haired Jesus, but if we analyze letters such as 1 Corinthians 11, the narrative collapses through simple internal consistency.

In that writing, Paul explicitly states two things: first, that he is an imitator of Christ; and second, that for a man it is a dishonor or a shame to let his hair grow long.

The mathematical conclusion is unavoidable: neither that apostle nor the historical Jesus wore long hair. It is a matter of basic logical honesty. No one who claims to faithfully follow a teacher would call the very appearance of that teacher a ‘shame.’

Where, then, does the image of the man with long hair, light skin, and a solar crown come from? It does not come from historical reality or from the context of the first century. It comes from Roman aesthetic assimilation, which took the features of its own pagan deities and gave them the name of Jesus to facilitate religious control. We were sold a portrait fabricated by the same empire that destroyed the original message.

[BLOCK 3 – THE FALLACY IN THE DESERT TEMPTATION]

We have also been told that this painting represents the supposed temptation of Jesus in the desert. However, when we analyze the texts that the official structure used to support that account —such as Matthew 4—, the seams once again come apart.

In that passage, Psalm 91 is quoted to support the scene: ‘He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.’ But if you read Psalm 91 in its entirety, the protagonist of that text is someone to whom nothing happens, someone at whose side a thousand and ten thousand fall on his right, but harm does not reach him.

That scenario was never fulfilled in the historical Jesus. He was executed; he fell before imperial violence, and many did not fall before him.

This painting was presented to us as the pious account of an overcome temptation, when in reality they passed off a text about protection and invulnerability that was not fulfilled, forcing it to give validity to the narrative they constructed. It is another example of how the empire took incomplete fragments to force prophecies and consolidate a story tailored to its interests.

[BLOCK 4 – THE CONTRADICTION OF THE KINGDOMS AND WORSHIP]

The temptation account adds another element that collapses through simple deductive analysis. We are told that Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth in exchange for bowing down and worshiping him.

Now, think about it coldly: if Satan rules all the kingdoms of the earth, is it logical to assume that the books and official canons approved by the empires of this world contain an intact truth? Or is it not more logical to conclude that those same official writings are infiltrated and edited by those who control those kingdoms?

But the contradiction becomes even more evident when analyzing the behavior attributed to Jesus in other passages. In the account of the ten lepers who were healed, the narrative shows Jesus allowing the only one who returned to bow at his feet, stating that only he gave glory to God.

Here we must ask the fundamental questions: Would a righteous man who respects God ask other human beings to kneel before him? Would he demand exactly the same thing that Satan supposedly asked him to do in the desert?

We are presented with a character molded in the image of imperial kings and solar gods, tolerating and encouraging people to bow before him. And to make matters worse, in passages such as Hebrews 1:6 they claim that all the angels must worship him.

This clashes head-on with older writings such as Psalm 97, where it is clearly established that worship belongs exclusively to Jehovah —the Creator who is not a creature and who cannot die—. Jesus, on the other hand, according to the account itself, died.

The pieces fabricated by the empire simply do not fit.

[BLOCK 5 – THE MANIPULATION IN THE QUOTATION OF PSALM 69]

To dispel any doubt about how these writings were manipulated and assembled, let us analyze a concrete example that was sold to us as the supreme act of love, but which completely falls apart when the original sources are examined.

The traditional narrative tells us that, while on the cross, Jesus was given vinegar to drink in order to ‘fulfill a scripture,’ and that at that very moment he prayed for his executioners, saying: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ We were taught to see this as an example of forgiveness carried through to the final breath. But what does the cited prophecy actually say?

The reference to vinegar comes from Psalm 69. However, when you read the full context of that psalm, the tone is not one of forgiveness or love toward enemies; it is the exact opposite.

The protagonist of that psalm is not asking forgiveness for those who are torturing him. He is asking for judgment: he demands that the banquet of his enemies become a trap, that their eyes be blinded, and that wrath fall upon them.

How is it possible for an act presented as supreme forgiveness to cite as its support a text in which the protagonist cries out for the ruin of his aggressors?

Here the seam of Roman editing is exposed. They took isolated verses to force the fulfillment of supposed prophecies, creating a pious narrative that promoted resignation and submission before the oppressor, while deliberately ignoring the original context of the writing. We were sold a story made over by the same hands that edited the book.

[BLOCK 6 – THE INVERSION OF THE IMAGE]

In light of this evidence and these historical contradictions, the conclusion is unavoidable: the Roman Empire never adopted or preached the original teaching it persecuted; rather, it absorbed it and molded it to suit its own purposes.

That is why the definitive question must be asked by looking directly at the iconography that was imposed upon us.

Look carefully at this representation. If the historical framework of first-century Judea indicates that the local population had darker complexions and wore short hair —in accordance with the letters attributed to Paul—, it is contradictory that the figure of the ‘righteous man’ was drawn with Nordic features, long hair, and imperial solar elements.

Could it be that history was completely inverted? Who really represents the oppressor in that painting, and who represents the righteous man who refused to submit to the empire?

The empire dressed its own image in the mantle of holiness and portrayed the features of the subjected people under the figure of the adversary. We were taught to venerate the aesthetic of the dominator and reject the actual appearance of the persecuted.

Think about it. The answer is not found in blind faith, but in questioning whom the image before which you kneel benefits.

[BLOCK 7 – THE MILITARY AESTHETIC OF THE SUPPOSED IMAGE]

If there is still any doubt about how the aesthetic of the subjugator was perpetuated, all you have to do is observe the supposed image with which they represented the celestial protector, Saint Michael.

Look carefully at the official statues and paintings. You do not see a spiritual entity there; you literally see the image of a Roman legionary. He is equipped with a helmet, cuirass, raised sword, and military sandals. It is almost an exact replica of the statues of the god Mars that Rome already worshiped.

The iconographic deception is absolute: they taught people to kneel before a representation dressed exactly like the soldiers who persecuted and executed the true followers.

They took the figure of the military oppressor, added wings to him, and told people that this was the image of the protector. Teaching people to venerate the aesthetic of the dominator is proof that the empire did not change its devotion; it only changed the names of its statues.