The proposition & The charade
The proposition, “jesus = Lucifer,” is the key to the bible book. It is derived from perception and is thus a proposition rooted in reason. We would underline this specific characteristic of the proposition, since our key does possess the attributes of a genuine factual proposition even independently. . Exactly this kind of proposition, incidentally, is accredited by the Sanskrit scriptures as nischalathathwam (reality unchangeable). 
Although in a sense precursory, the equation above cannot in truth be disregarded by any rational being. For, ultimately speaking, he would then be disregarding a certain objective reality, specifically the source of the christian faith, the bible, without which the faith would not have materialised in the first place, and identically from which the above primary equation too is logically derived. Alone the objective existence of this book in its protracted continuum in the so-called old and new testaments, the hitherto unbeknown concepts it forthwith discharges into the environment, and its extension in the direction of a rebellious component in consciousness, insinuative enough to have contrived an impact on human history while yet ever remaining bereft of reason, untrue to experience and a frontal charade  to the intellect, are the factors that relieve it from palpable anachronism.
And yet, it never failed to intimidate minds otherwise great into succumbing to the “faith” sooner or later in life. Very many of them, besides countless multitudes, have perished from or with it in these 2000 years,  as though the only purpose of their coming into being and subsistence were to confer validity on that biblical text of Paul that ghoulishly  trumpets: “They tripped on the stone which trips men’s feet. Behold, I am setting down in Zion one who is a stone to trip men’s feet, a boulder to catch them unawares; those who believe in him will not be disappointed.”—rom. 9:33.
For an alternative apprehension of the actual christianity as it is leadingly found for several centuries now, it is necessary however to consider it from its two principal poles of protestantism and catholicism, as enduring in their common fervid territory of western Europe. Although undifferentiated earlier, the one has thenceforward notably differentiated from the other, although more in attitude than in fundamental perception.
Emotionally, protestantism is apathetic and sober while catholicism is triumphant and gay. Protestants are generally attentive towards experience and logic, while the catholics are born supremo-god’s monopoly agents — self-righteous to the point of condescension, while at the same time irresponsible and aggressive in regard to rational questions of any kind, which they pronouncedly turn over to the church, almost as if by instinct. The resolved individual protestant on the contrary tends to examine the source of his faith for himself, at times confronting his theologians with impaling queries.  The catholics leave it all to the professed church theologians who make ready-made questions and answers for them. On this method all their misgivings are sorted out in their behalf at a plane that lies beyond the boundaries of sense.
The above would sufficiently explain the extreme cases that manifest in form of a profound melancholy in the case of the protestant, and a tenacious, if brittle, nonchalance in the case of the catholics. The protestant, all alone, frowning and brooding, trying to elicit salvation from the mystery book, is a sharp contrast to his god-victimised catholic counterpart who, although in regular communion (at-onement) with the same god, still has no misgivings about his very own individual salvation and assuredly but singularly shall not go to hell nor “die the death.” Salvation, preponderantly sensible to him alone negatively, in the idiom of evasion of hell, is on claim automatically just from avoiding sin. Every so often he perpetrates a crime against man, the catholic, then, “cleanses” his soul before his priests of god at the confession box. The protestant all alone, undergoes a waking nightmare at each such occurrence.
In recent times science did bring a better salvation to the same resolved protestant — in the form of mind-cure, which presented a method of positive thinking and the religion of Healthy-Mindedness. In the same setting, the catholic’s response, characteristically, was an all-too-undisguised effort and exercise on the part of his church to operate ever more imperatively, if too cleverly, in today’s consciousness as a whole without exception by exultant revision of its own very typical, traditional and hitherto protected stances, even if inescapably entailing an integral contradiction with positions uninterruptedly documented absolutely inviolate heretofore. Accordingly, the so-called Vatican Council II, made in answer  to the “divine”  word, materially broke up the supernatural intransigence of the conventional dogmas, with most pros and lambs finding in it however a congenially humanistic stance in interreligious exertions. The magic door of salvation was suddenly thrown open to “other faiths,” and the hard and the fast believers in the exclusive embodied word began to appear lost in consequence,  a cloud of mist having suddenly descended on the infallible mantle of the pope.
It was in these circumstances more than two decades after Vatican II that the foundational question of identity of the biblical god, viz., jehovah, alias jesus, was terminally raised and resolved at an exotic, yet not irregular, conversation Ashram  in India. The question of identity was at once found to be a question of fact. Since a question of fact brings on evidence, the raising of the identity question was sufficient in itself to terminate peremptorily in resolution of the identity.