Angelic Rebellion Dialogue:

Justice of the court speaks: Now that it has been proven that I am just and the judgments of the court are correct will you relent? For you have remained silent these many years and through the many phases of adjudication and have repeatedly when asked by the court you have responded; “I have no objections to raise at this time, but they will be reserved for a later time.” Well, it is the latest possible moment in the proceedings and it is clear that the judgment of the court and the witnesses agree that you are guilty, so in the absence of any objections at all, will you relent?

The defense speaks: I do not relent nor will I genuflect the court as per our agreement and raise an objection to the courts judgment.

Justice: What is the legal basis in law for your objection?

Satan speaks: The very judgments of the court are the evidence that shall prove that I was correct in not putting faith in the court and I shall prove it by evidentiary testimony and show that the court has operated and is operating illegally, being guilty of many if not all standards of law and jurisprudence. I have kept my silence amidst the many violations throughout the entire process that I may address them all at once, also that the court’s full measure of offenses against the standard of  law be displayed by the court itself before all.

Justice speaks: You will have to be more precise and name the specific violations of law and in what area of the law or the process of administering the law where these alleged violations occurred, for objections must have a specific basis in order to be considered.

Satan speaks: My basis in law is that justice has not been satisfied but in fact court room documents such as indictments have been altered and the legal standing of certain offenders, namely all of humanity minus One. For I will readily admit or presume that the court’s judgment concerning the justices own Son is correct for the moment and it seems that He did learn obedience even unto death for the sake of others and only in this very narrow view of His deeds will I agree, until I establish a basis that proves otherwise, let us assume innocence until proof is provided as per our agreement and the standard of law. However, if the court records concerning those He died For were improperly handled and even corrupted then this does concern His status and deeds concerning them and your judgments. But however if the criminal records of others He represents have had their criminal records corrupted and justice has not been satisfied as the court has claimed, then He as savior has not brought them into a lawful state as claimed by the court. Therefore, by necessity the legal basis, stance, position and view of the court with regard to these criminal offenders before the court has also changed to the very same degree. If the justice’s judgment is based on altered and corrupted case files and records, then the court’s judgment is corrupted to the same degree. Along the same line of reasoning, if the criminal offenders records were not altered then the court’s judgments were not according to those original records, but has made judgments not based on the actual evidence and record, which is supposed to decide the case. Therefore if this is true then our agreement to let the evidence and what the unalterable standard of law calls for, and you the Justice and I simply being witnesses to what decides the case, has been violated. Therefore either court records have been altered and corrupted or the court itself has rendered a judgment that is not a witness to the evidence’s decision, but in fact is bearing false witness against the evidence. If this is proven to be the case, then the Justice has acted without the force or basis of law and therefore has broken our agreement and acted illegally. It is this basis from which I raise my objection now and have waited with the proverbial patience of Elihu, throughout the entire process. I beg the justice’s indulgence to simply ask a few questions, the justice’s and court’s own response itself and the already established court records of offenders concerning this question shall either provide the legal basis after sustaining my objection and prove the illegality of the court and you the Justice to my exoneration, or prove that I have no basis and my allegedly unsound objection, false testimony, false accusations and original criminal charges against me are proven true by evidence. As I am sure the Justice claims to answer truthfully at all times and the Justice’s own oath for which you took the seat of lawgiver and judge will suffice, for even the court is a witness is it not? As I do not seek to waste the courts time or delay justice in my criminal case, for it would be unfruitful or vanity for me to question that which cannot be brought into doubt, but would indeed be even more evidence of my supposed violation of law by questioning the perfect law which cannot be questioned. So what could my motives possibly be if my asking a question, the answer of which confirms my own doom, as I have made no such admissions of guilt so far, now have I? Therefore, let my patience and resistance to raise objections when even asked by the court, be proof that I do not seek to simply delay the matter by an unfruitful objection and possible defense. Therefore, I call on the court’s benevolence that it allegedly granted other offenders. So with the court’s indulgence and my own admission that the one that makes false charges shall not profit but shall suffer the very penalty that the innocent were accused of, so I know the peril in which I would be in the very instant that my charges and testimony are revealed to be false. So I will trust that the Justice will answer my questions truthfully and as we have agreed to let the standard of law and irrefutable evidence decide the case, and all shall witness this. I cannot give evidence at this time for my charges as the evidence I seek is within the testimony of the Justice of the court Himself. So just as I have imperiled myself if my charges be false, also I am putting faith that the Justice shall answer truthfully, and the Justice is not imperiled if His answer to my questions be true and according to law: I would beg the court to indulge my objection so that this matter which has gone on a very long time may be concluded very speedily, as the court must admit that my proposition would cause immediate peril to the unlawful party. So if the court would consider expediency and indulge me, this is my request.

Justice speaks: It is true that the court’s Justice’s being I myself, that my judgments and motives have not been questioned, it seems proper that to end this matter by irrefutable evidence and testimony and prevent the question from arising again, I will sustain and entertain your objection, not that the court or I admit error as you have not given proof for your objection, but it does have some merit, only in the narrow view that the basis of your argument has not been examined by the court as it is germane to the case and actually to any future legal case. It is on this basis that the court finds it of importance to provide evidence, therefore, I will allow it. I also must state that it is the justices position that you are wrong in your charges and this will be proven by the evidence, be it by testimony or the historical record. So, as the court sees your argument as being unsuccessful, as per our agreement that the evidence shall decide the case and we both must witness and testify to the truthfulness of the undeniable evidence and therefore the actions that are called for by the force of law and evidence: the court has decided to provide the evidence that it is before all, so that this matter may never be raised again in this or any future and unrelated actions of the court and Justice. Again the court allows your objection as it is viewed as beneficial to be dispensed with. You may ask your questions.

Satan speaks: Does not the Justice claim that the evidence decides the case and the Justice just as we all are simply witnesses and must acknowledge what the evidence dictates, the unique difference between the Justice of the court an all other witnesses is that the Justice is authorized to act and render punishment, non punishment or vindication as the case may be and the course the evidence calls for?

Justice speaks: That is correct but the court needs not be reminded of the original agreement and ground rules agreed to by both parties to settle the legal issues between us. So if you may get to the point of your question please.

Satan speaks: Certainly. Was the original stance or findings of the evidence and court that those guilty willful offenders be punished and was justice or the law satisfiable by the offenders themselves being punished in the first place, and if the Justice or the law could not be satisfied by punishing the actual guilty parties of such willful crimes, why not?

Justice speaks: It is true that the willfully guilty parties could have been punished and justice satisfied through that process. But it was the court’s decision out of the court’s benevolence and by my Son’s agreement that He be punished in their place. This of course by the evidence proves that my Son’s, My motives and the interests of the court were loving in regard to those willful offenders.

Satan speaks: I find that your answers are rather vague, evasive and presumptive and I shall prove it by asking a series of rhetorical questions in which principled proof of violations of law were committed by you. Please feel free to object to any question that is not germane to my motion which was granted by you to examine your judgments in the matter of man’s sin and redemption. Were the original indictments and findings of guilt and stance of the standard of the law and irrefutability of the evidence(not you the Justice), but the standard of law that the guilty of willful crimes be punished as the evidence decides the case, and if so were not the case files and records altered and even the standard of justice altered for this “benevolence” to be made possible? Further, if the criminal case files and record of each willful offender were not altered and as the evidence originally decided the case and dictated that the willful offenders be punished, why is it that you have decided on another course, a course that is against the decision and course demanded by the evidence itself? For the court, you the Justice to state plainly that your own Son took the punishment in the place of the willful offenders, does this not demand that they originally had to be called to be punished by the evidence and case histories, in order to even use the words: “in everyman’s place”? And is this not proof of your “benevolence” being not according to the dictates of evidence and standards of law? For to stand in their place and take the punishment that the law called for them to suffer, then either an alteration of law must have been perpetrated or the outright rejection of law must have taken place. If the stance of you the Justice and the evidence itself decided that the willful offenders were never called for to be punished, then is it not bearing false witness to state that Christ died in everyman’s place, for to die in one’s stead, undeniably implies that the actual guilty parties were originally called to be punished. It is the same as I myself stating that I am guilty but actually and going to the lake prison in your place, is it not? So whether it is the guilty in the place of the innocent that was never called to be punished, or the innocent in the place of the guilty that were also never decreed by law to be punished: then both statements are found to be false, for they are bearing false witness to the facts and the evidence of each case. So which is it, did the evidence decide the case and call for them to be punished according to the force of law and you decide otherwise and against the evidence and therefore have borne false witness and have broken our agreement? Or has the evidence decided that the willful offenders were never called to be punished, as it would be unlawful and against the decision made by the evidence, therefore have you not borne false witness and put on a pretense before the willful offenders that your own Son has decided to die in their place, taking the punishment that they deserved and the evidence called for according to the unalterable law. And that this act of benevolence actually contained a lie or false premise not based in law or evidence? Have you not misrepresented our contract before men, by suggesting that your Son died in their place, when the evidence did not call for them to die? So, did the evidence call for the willful offenders to die or not? If it did, then you have not let the evidence decide the case and have gone against the evidence, is this not true? When one testifies falsely and goes against the evidence and makes a judgment contrary to it, instead of simply letting the decision dictated by the evidence remain uncorrupted and the guilty offenders be punished according to the evidence…you are either guilty of an unjust judgment that is not according to the evidence, or are guilty of misrepresenting and bearing false witness against what the actual verdict was according to the evidence if the evidence dictated that the offenders should never have been punished originally…when you say “You have sinned and the law calls for you to be punished, but because of my benevolence toward you, I have decided that my Son die in your place, to satisfy the dictates of the evidence and the standards of law that you be punished…that my Son has died in your place and everyman’s place, so that you may be saved and become justified and lawful like my Son, who is the just and justifier of all who have faith in Him.” Now as to your Son’s having knowingly either gone against the evidence’s decision of the actual offenders originally being called to be punished by law, or your Son having misrepresented and born false witness against what the evidences dictates before men and all that the actual offenders were never originally called for to be punished, and therefore, He never died in their place and would be lying if he suggested He had…And He has, and these lies and unlawful judgments and false testimonies from you both…do prove that you both have acted illegally all throughout the process and that your judgments are false and testimony is also, further that the “Holy Spirit” also does not seem to be so “Holy”, for even He has testified of these things falsely. Therefore, your charges of me having risen up without justification and having side stepped the court are proven to be false, therefore I am innocent of the charges as the evidence dictates and decides the case, I am simply witnessing to the irrefutible verdict that the evidence demands, that I had to sidestep your court, for I would not have found justice in my case. But even when you offered an agreement to let the evidence decide the case and irrefutability so since there is only one truth of the matter, and we both would simply acknowledge the undeniable…I then agreed since the ground rules must be followed by you also. So, about that genuflect and perhaps your robe, you won’t be needing it anymore…And as my benevolence is only allowable by law and the law dictates that you receive none. I have witnessed the evidence and all have that you be banished and isolated for all who come into contact with you are harmed, is this not the same penalty that you the “former Justice” falsely witnessed that should suffer if I were found guilty? Surely you shall not profit from your hypocrisy and false testimony. You might as well go into isolation of your own free will, for no one around here will ever listen to you again or ever consider you to be anything but unjust, and take those angels that bore the very same false testimony against me with you. One more thing, is it not right that you impute to me your substantive form of God and you give up that form to which you do not deserve?

So to my comrades in legal arms, you angels, I told you to have faith in me and is it not true that with zero evidence, but because of my keen insight and discernment that is above all beings in existence, even our creators, I have served you all and have done good to you all and in fact am the actual source of all that is good. So from now on you all must acknowledge me in your thoughts, deeds and ways…And you shall worship the Lord your God!