BY VCG 8/1/2026#

Jesus’ historical existence does not depend upon the inaccurate claim that every religion regards him as divine. Jesus was a Jewish historical figure whose followers later carried his message into other cultures, where he was variously worshipped, honoured, reinterpreted, or rejected. Likewise, the Hebrew Bible’s use of ancient Near Eastern storm imagery for Yahweh deserves careful historical study, especially in comparison with Baal, but literary and cultural parallels do not establish simple identity. Finally, the biblical meaning of “Satan” must be determined contextually: the Hebrew term can designate an ordinary adversary, Job and Zechariah portray a heavenly accuser, and the New Testament presents a developed personal spiritual enemy. Scripture also teaches inward temptation through human lust, but it does not collapse the Devil into the human psyche.

Hiskanto’s new comment contains one broadly correct conclusion, one suggestive but undeveloped historical claim, and one sound methodological proposal:

“Considering Jesus went to every religion and stapled himself as divine in some way, it's really difficult to suggest that he didn't exist.”

“Now the nature of Yahwey and the storm God are very interesting to delve into…”

“…but let's focus on the biblical context of ‘the devil’ and what that really means.”

The basic verdict is:

• Jesus’ historical existence is well supported, but not because every religion treats him as divine.
• The relationship between Yahweh, Canaanite religion, Baal, and storm imagery is a genuine field of study, but “Yahweh was originally just a storm god” would be a considerable oversimplification.
• Examining “the devil” contextually is exactly the right method, provided the conclusion is allowed to arise from the texts rather than being predetermined as “the devil is only human doubt.”

All Scripture quotations below use the attached KJV Pure Cambridge Edition.

Claim One#

“Considering Jesus went to every religion and stapled himself as divine in some way…”

Verdict: False as a universal claim and confused about historical agency#

The probable meaning is not that Jesus physically travelled to every religious community. Hiskanto likely means that many later religions or religious interpreters incorporated Jesus into their own systems.

That phenomenon is real. But the sentence badly overstates it.

Jesus did not “go to every religion”#

According to the Gospel narratives, Jesus was a first-century Jewish teacher whose earthly ministry was centred principally in Galilee and Judaea.

When initially sending the Twelve, Jesus commanded:

“Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

—Matthew 10:5–6.

Jesus similarly says:

“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

—Matthew 15:24.

The New Testament later describes a universal mission, but notice the distinction: Jesus commands his disciples to carry the gospel to the nations.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…”

—Matthew 28:19.

“Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

—Acts 1:8.

Therefore, the biblical sequence is:

1. Jesus ministers within a particular Jewish historical setting.
2. Jesus commissions his followers.
3. Christianity spreads into other cultures.
4. Later religions and thinkers respond to, reinterpret, accept, reject, or appropriate Jesus.

That is not the same as Jesus personally

“going to every religion.”

“Stapled himself” assigns agency to the wrong person#

Jesus did not personally insert himself into religions that arose centuries later. Later communities interpreted him.

That distinction matters.

For example:

• Christianity confesses Jesus as divine.
• Islam incorporates Jesus into its prophetic history while rejecting Christian claims about his divine sonship.
• The Bahá’í Faith places Jesus within a succession of “Manifestations of God.”
• Some modern Hindu interpreters have treated Jesus as a guru, holy man, or even an avatar.
• Some modern Buddhist writers compare Jesus with a bodhisattva or enlightened teacher.

These are acts of religious reception. They tell us how later people understood Jesus, not necessarily what Jesus historically said about himself.

The official Bahá’í presentation, for example, includes Jesus among a succession of major “Manifestations of God.” That illustrates how a later religion may integrate an earlier religious figure into its own theological system. (Bahá’í Faith)

Not every religion regards Jesus as divine#

This portion of the statement is demonstrably wrong.

Judaism#

Mainstream Judaism does not recognize Jesus as God, the divine Son, or the fulfilled Messiah. Jewish treatments commonly describe belief in Jesus’ divinity as incompatible with Judaism’s insistence upon God’s unity. (My Jewish Learning)

Therefore, one of the religions most historically connected to Jesus does not “staple him as divine.”

Islam#

Islam honours Jesus as the Messiah, born of Mary, a messenger, and a word from God. But the Qur’an explicitly warns against treating him according to Christian Trinitarian or divine-sonship doctrine:

Jesus is presented as a messenger, while the reader is told not to say “Three” and that God is one.

Thus Islam’s incorporation of Jesus is simultaneously a denial of the classical Christian understanding of his deity. (Quran.com)

Calling Jesus “Messiah,” “Word,” or “Spirit from God” in Islamic discourse does not mean Islam considers Jesus God. Those expressions function within Islamic monotheology, which expressly denies that God has a divine son.

Christianity#

It is within New Testament Christianity that the identification of Jesus with divine status is explicit:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

“And the Word was made flesh…”

—John 1:1, 14.

Paul likewise writes:

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God…”

—Philippians 2:6.

And Colossians states:

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

—Colossians 2:9.

These are specifically Christian claims. They should not be retroactively attributed to “every religion.”

The historical conclusion is stronger than the stated argument#

Hiskanto is broadly correct that denying Jesus’ existence is historically difficult. But the fact that later religions mention Jesus is not the strongest reason.

Widespread cultural influence cannot by itself prove historicity. Later societies also borrow and reinterpret legendary and literary characters.

The question must be decided by examining:

• The age of the sources.
• Their relationship to the alleged person.
• Whether sources are independent.
• Whether they locate the person in identifiable history.
• Whether the person’s existence explains the rise of the relevant movement better than competing hypotheses.

The historical case for Jesus rests mainly on early first-century Christian testimony and later Jewish and Roman references—not upon modern religious popularity.

Paul’s letters predate the written Gospels and constitute the earliest surviving Christian writings concerning Jesus. Cambridge’s treatment of the historical Jesus notes that Paul’s letters are earlier than the Gospels, while Josephus and Tacitus provide later non-Christian confirmation of Jesus’ existence and execution under Pontius Pilate. (Cambridge University Press)

Josephus refers to:

“the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”

This passage occurs in Antiquities 20 and is distinct from the more disputed passage about Jesus in Book 18. (Perseus Digital Library)

Tacitus also reports that the name “Christian” derived from Christus, who was executed under Pontius Pilate during Tiberius’ reign. These notices are limited—they do not prove every Gospel claim—but they support Jesus’ historical existence. (Cambridge University Press)

Existence and divinity are separate questions#

Historical method can reasonably conclude:

• Jesus existed.
• He was Jewish.
• He attracted disciples.
• He was associated with a religious movement.
• He was crucified during the government of Pontius Pilate.
• His followers soon proclaimed that he had risen.

Historical method alone does not automatically settle:

• Whether Jesus is eternally God.
• Whether the virgin birth occurred.
• Whether miracles occurred.
• Whether the resurrection was an act of God.
• Whether Jesus is the only mediator between God and humanity.

Those are theological and philosophical claims requiring arguments beyond the minimal conclusion that Jesus existed.

Hiskanto moves too quickly from:

“Many religions acknowledge Jesus”

to:

“Therefore Jesus existed.”

The conclusion is reasonable, but the proposed evidence is poorly formulated.

Rhetorical and psychological function#

This sentence uses three persuasive devices.

Universalization#

“Every religion” sounds comprehensive but avoids the burden of naming and examining individual traditions.

A universal claim can be disproved by one genuine exception. Judaism and Islam already invalidate the assertion that every religion makes Jesus divine.

Cultural ubiquity as proof#

The argument assumes that widespread recognition establishes existence. This is a form of an argument from cultural prominence.

Cultural prominence may require an explanation, but it does not by itself determine whether the original figure was historical, legendary, or a mixture of history and later interpretation.

“Stapled himself”#

This vivid phrase makes later religious adoption sound like an action performed by Jesus.

It obscures the actual historical process:

Later communities inherited reports about Jesus and reinterpreted them according to their own theological frameworks.

Corrected formulation#

Jesus did not personally enter every religion, and not every religion regards him as divine. Nevertheless, his historical existence is well supported by early Christian testimony and later Jewish and Roman references. Later religions have variously accepted, rejected, or reinterpreted him, but that reception history is distinct from the historical evidence for his existence.

Claim Two#

“Now the nature of Yahwey and the storm God are very interesting to delve into…”

Verdict: Points toward a real scholarly debate but does not yet make a defined argument#

The conventional scholarly spelling is Yahweh, not “Yahwey.”

More importantly, the sentence is ambiguous.

It might mean:

1. Yahweh and a separate storm god.
2. Yahweh’s relationship to Baal, the Canaanite storm god.
3. The theory that Yahweh was himself originally a storm or warrior deity.
4. The claim that the biblical portrayal of Yahweh borrowed storm-god imagery.
5. The stronger claim that Yahweh is simply Baal under another name.

These are different propositions and must not be treated as interchangeable.

What historical scholarship genuinely observes#

Ancient Israel developed within the broader cultural world of the ancient Levant. Israelite language, poetry, political organization, imagery, and religious vocabulary naturally share features with neighbouring Canaanite cultures.

Ugaritic texts are especially relevant. Ugarit was a Late Bronze Age city whose texts preserve traditions about El, Baal, Anat, Yamm, Mot, and other deities. In those texts, Baal functions prominently as a warrior and storm deity associated with rain, thunder, fertility, and kingship. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)

The Hebrew Bible also uses storm and warrior imagery for Yahweh.

Psalm 29 says:

“The voice of the LORD is upon the waters:

the God of glory thundereth…”

“The voice of the LORD divideth the flames of fire.”

“The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever.”

Scholars have long noted that Psalm 29 has an especially strong Canaanite background and employs imagery closely resembling language associated with Baal. Some propose that it adapted an earlier Baal hymn; others regard it as an Israelite composition deliberately using familiar Canaanite poetic forms to proclaim Yahweh’s supremacy. (OUP Academic)

Oxford’s overview summarizes the genuine uncertainty: it is not completely clear whether Yahweh already possessed a storm-warrior character in an earlier southern setting or whether Yahweh’s worship absorbed portions of Baal’s symbolic repertoire as Israelite religion developed. (OUP Academic)

Therefore, this is a legitimate historical question.

What the evidence does not automatically establish#

The evidence does not allow one simply to announce:

“Yahweh was Baal.”

Nor does shared imagery prove that one deity is merely a fictional renaming of another.

Religions frequently reuse, challenge, reverse, or appropriate familiar images.

For example, if a king takes an enemy ruler’s title and applies it to himself, that may be:

• Borrowing.
• Political propaganda.
• Polemical displacement.
• A claim of superiority.
• Cultural continuity.
• Some combination of these.

The same interpretive possibilities apply to religious poetry.

Psalm 29 can use storm language familiar from Baal traditions while declaring that the thunder, waters, wilderness, glory, kingship, strength, and peace belong to Yahweh.

Several scholars therefore understand the Psalm as an appropriation of Baal-type language intended to emphasize Yahweh’s superiority, rather than a confession that Yahweh and Baal are the same being. (OUP Academic)

The biblical writers distinguish Yahweh from Baal#

Whatever reconstruction one proposes for earlier Israelite religious history, the biblical narratives as preserved do not identify Yahweh with Baal.

First Kings 18 presents an explicit confrontation:

“How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him:

but if Baal, then follow him.”

—1 Kings 18:21.

The narrative then contrasts the unresponsive Baal with the LORD who answers Elijah.

The literary-theological message is not:

Yahweh and Baal are two names for the same storm power.

It is:

Israel must choose between the LORD and Baal.

That distinction may itself reflect competition within historical Israelite religion, but it is still a real distinction in the biblical narrative.

The Bible does not limit Yahweh to weather#

Calling Yahweh a “storm god” can become reductionistic because biblical texts attribute much more to him.

Yahweh is portrayed as:

• Creator of heaven and earth.
• Lawgiver.
• Covenant God.
• Judge of nations.
• Redeemer of Israel.
• King over creation.
• Giver of life.
• Searcher of hearts.
• Source of moral righteousness.
• Lord over weather rather than merely its personification.

Jeremiah places weather imagery inside a much larger doctrine of creation:

“But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king…”

“He hath made the earth by his power…”

“When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens…”

—Jeremiah 10:10–13.

The storm is one expression of Yahweh’s sovereignty; it is not the full definition of Yahweh’s nature.

Likewise, Psalm 33 says:

“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made…”

“For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

Thus the biblical theological claim is not simply that Yahweh belongs to the class “weather deity.” It is that the LORD made and governs the whole created order.

Historical reconstruction and biblical theology must be distinguished#

A historian of religion may ask:

How did historical Israelites understand Yahweh at different times?

That inquiry uses:

• Archaeology.
• Inscriptions.
• Comparative mythology.
• Textual strata.
• Ugaritic literature.
• Political and cultural history.

A biblical theologian may ask:

What does the final canonical text proclaim about the LORD?

That inquiry observes:

• The claims of the narratives.
• Prophetic polemic.
• Creation theology.
• Covenant.
• Monotheistic confession.
• The canonical relationship between passages.

These questions overlap, but they are not identical.

A careless skeptic may collapse them:

“Some early Israelites had polytheistic ideas, therefore the God revealed in Scripture is merely an invented storm god.”

A careless believer may collapse them in the opposite direction:

“The final canonical text is monotheistic, therefore no Israelite ever worshipped other gods or confused Yahweh with surrounding deities.”

Both claims exceed the evidence.

The Bible itself repeatedly says that Israelites worshipped Baal, Asherah, heavenly bodies, and other gods. One does not need to deny biblical testimony in order to acknowledge religious mixture in ancient Israel.

Rhetorical function#

The phrase “the nature of Yahweh and the storm God” works as an insinuation without a proposition.

It signals:

“There is hidden, destabilizing information here.”

But it does not yet specify:

• Which storm god.
• Which historical period.
• Which primary evidence.
• Whether the claim concerns imagery, origin, identity, borrowing, or polemic.
• Whether the speaker is discussing historical Israelite belief or the truth of biblical revelation.

This creates an impression of scholarly depth without exposing a defined claim to examination.

Corrected formulation#

The Hebrew Bible uses storm-warrior imagery for Yahweh, and several passages—especially Psalm 29—have close parallels with Canaanite traditions about Baal. Scholars debate whether Yahweh already possessed such characteristics or acquired portions of Baal’s imagery during the development of Israelite religion. Shared imagery does not by itself prove that Yahweh and Baal were identical, and the final biblical texts explicitly distinguish Yahweh from Baal while presenting Yahweh as Creator and universal King.

Claim Three#

“But let's focus on the biblical context of ‘the devil’ and what that really means.”

Verdict: Correct methodological instinct, but potentially prejudicial wording#

Studying “the devil” in biblical context is exactly what should be done.

The danger lies in the phrase:

“what that really means.”

That wording can suggest that the speaker already possesses a secret reduction explaining every passage:

Satan “really” means doubt, inner resistance, political opposition, or psychological shadow.

A sound method must permit different words and passages to function differently.

There is no single lexical rule for every occurrence of “satan”#

The Hebrew noun śāṭān fundamentally concerns opposition, accusation, or adversarial activity.

It may describe:

• A human adversary.
• An angelic opponent.
• A heavenly accuser.
• A more specifically identified supernatural adversary.

Oxford’s overview notes that the Hebrew noun is used for both earthly and cosmic opponents and that the fully developed image of a cosmic opponent becomes clearest in early Jewish and Christian literature. (OUP Academic)

Numbers 22#

In the Hebrew text of Numbers 22, the angel of the LORD stands in Balaam’s path as an adversary—a satan against him.

The KJV renders the sense rather than transliterating the word:

“The angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him.”

—Numbers 22:22.

This occurrence clearly does not refer to the Devil. The angel of the LORD is opposing Balaam in obedience to God.

Therefore:

Not every occurrence of the Hebrew word satan identifies the later Christian Devil.

That is an important correction.

Job#

Job introduces “the satan” or “the accuser” among the heavenly beings:

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.”

The figure speaks, questions Job’s motives, receives limited permission, and departs from the LORD’s presence.

Scholars commonly emphasize that the Hebrew construction is “the satan”—the adversary or accuser—and that the figure functions as a prosecutorial member of the heavenly court. One should not automatically import every feature of later Christian demonology into Job. (OUP Academic)

But the opposite reduction also fails.

The Joban accuser is not Job’s internal doubt:

• The scene occurs without Job’s knowledge.
• The accuser speaks to God, not to Job’s unconscious mind.
• Job never learns of the heavenly dialogue.
• The narrator distinguishes the accuser from Job.

Thus “not yet the complete New Testament Devil” does not mean “merely a psychological impulse.”

Zechariah 3#

Zechariah sees:

“Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.”

The LORD then rebukes Satan.

Again, “the accuser” is a fitting translation.

But the passage still presents distinguishable participants:

• Joshua.
• The angel of the LORD.
• The LORD.
• The accuser.

Reducing the scene to Joshua’s internal doubt does not follow from its grammar or narrative structure.

The New Testament portrait is more developed#

The New Testament uses Greek diabolos—slanderer or accuser—and the transliterated Satanas.

Here the adversary is repeatedly portrayed as a personal agent who:

• Tempts Jesus.
• Speaks.
• Deceives.
• Accuses.
• Enters or influences persons.
• Has “angels.”
• Opposes the gospel.
• Is resisted.
• Is finally judged.

A major historical study of New Testament Satanology concludes that the New Testament contains no persuasive evidence that Satan was being rationalized, abstracted, or reduced to an impersonal principle. The authors appear to have understood Satan as a real suprahuman adversary, probably angelic in nature. (OUP Academic)

That does not prove the being exists to someone who rejects the New Testament’s worldview.

But it strongly challenges the exegetical claim:

“The New Testament writers only meant human doubt.”

Jesus distinguishes the Devil from human lust#

In John 8, Jesus says:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.”

“He was a murderer from the beginning…”

“He is a liar, and the father of it.”

—John 8:44.

Notice that the text relates “the devil” and human “lusts,” but does not identify them as the same entity.

Likewise, Scripture can teach:

“Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust…”

—James 1:14

Babylon’s Bedroom: Lust Unmasked from Eden to Algorithms – Library of Rickandria

while also commanding:

“Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”

—James 4:7.

The biblical authors can recognize both:

• Inward sinful desire.
• An external spiritual adversary.

There is no textual necessity to erase one in order to preserve the other.

“Biblical context” includes development across the canon#

A responsible analysis should not flatten every biblical period into one identical doctrine.

The evidence suggests a progression:

1. Satan can simply mean an opponent.
2. Job and Zechariah portray “the accuser” in the heavenly court.
3. Later Jewish literature develops more extensive portrayals of cosmic opposition.
4. The New Testament presents Satan or the Devil as a leading spiritual enemy.
5. Revelation gathers several titles—dragon, serpent, Devil, Satan, deceiver, and accuser—into one apocalyptic figure.

Historical development is real.

But development is not the same thing as invention, and it is certainly not proof that the New Testament authors meant nothing more than an inward psychological shadow.

Rhetorical function of “what that really means”#

This phrase can perform a form of interpretive preemption.

Instead of asking:

“What do the various passages mean in their own contexts?”

the speaker may already be preparing the answer:

“They all really mean something psychological.”

That is not contextual interpretation. It is a controlling theory imposed on the evidence.

A better procedure is:

1. Identify the original word.
2. Determine whether it is common or definite.
3. Examine the literary genre.
4. Identify the acting characters.
5. Observe what actions are attributed to them.
6. Compare earlier and later passages.
7. Distinguish lexical meaning from theological synthesis.
8. Only then formulate a conclusion.

Corrected formulation#

The biblical terms translated “Satan” and “devil” must be interpreted passage by passage. The Hebrew word can mean an ordinary adversary, while Job and Zechariah portray a heavenly accuser. The New Testament presents a more developed personal cosmic opponent. Human lust and inward sin are also genuine sources of temptation, but the biblical writers do not simply equate those desires with Satan.

Overall Assessment#

Hiskanto’s first statement reaches a reasonable historical conclusion through poor reasoning.

Jesus almost certainly existed, but not because he “went to every religion.” His existence is supported by the early Christian movement, Paul’s letters, Gospel traditions, and later references in Josephus and Tacitus. Later religious reinterpretations demonstrate Jesus’ enormous historical influence, not by themselves his existence or divinity. (Perseus Digital Library)

His reference to Yahweh and storm-god traditions points toward legitimate ancient Near Eastern scholarship. Yahweh is portrayed through storm-warrior imagery, and that imagery has close Canaanite parallels. But the evidence does not justify skipping directly to “Yahweh was merely Baal” or “the biblical God is nothing but a recycled weather deity.” The texts both share cultural imagery and polemically distinguish Yahweh from Baal. (OUP Academic)

His proposal to study the biblical context of “the devil” is sound. Yet a genuine contextual investigation does not support his previous reduction of Satan to an inner shadow or natural doubt. The vocabulary develops from ordinary opposition to a heavenly accuser and finally to the New Testament’s explicitly personal cosmic adversary.

Satan, Symbol & the Self: A Biblical, Historical & Psychological Rebuttal to the Claim That the Devil Does Not Exist – Library of Rickandria

VCG PAPER PROJECTS – Library of Rickandria

Jesus in “Every Religion,” Yahweh & Storm-God Imagery & the Biblical Meaning of “the Devil”

Jesus in “Every Religion,” Yahweh & Storm-God Imagery & the Biblical Meaning of “the Devil” – Library of Rickandria