

### Frequently Asked Questions:

### Bible & Bible Quotations

### By

### Jesus (AJ Miller) &

### Mary Magdalene (Mary Luck)

### Session 2

Published by

Divine Truth, Australia at Smashwords

http://www.divinetruth.com/

Copyright 2015 Divine Truth

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this ebook. You are welcome to share it with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed. If you enjoyed this book, please return to Smashwords.com to discover other works by this author. Thank you for your support.

### This ebook is a collection of answers given by Jesus (AJ Miller) on the topic of the Christian Bible. The answers were given in an interview with Mary Magdalene (Mary Luck), who posed frequently asked questions from members of the media and public, on 10th March 2013 in Wilkesdale, Queensland, Australia. In this session Jesus discusses the truth and error contained within the Bible, and Bible verses about his identity claim and the second coming of Christ.

### Reminder From Jesus & Mary

### Jesus and Mary would like to remind you that any document produced by Divine Truth containing any information from Jesus, Mary or any other person includes only a portion of God's Truth that they have personally discovered.

### It does not and cannot contain the entire of God's Truth since God's Truth is infinite and humankind will forever continue to discover more of God's Truth as we progress in receiving more of God's Love.

### Please remember that due to these limitations information contained within this document may need to be revised in the future.

### Many other ebooks have been published by Divine Truth, including ebooks translated into a variety of different languages.

### Please visit <http://www.Smashwords.com/profile/view/DivineTruth> or www.divinetruth.com for further information.

### Additional sessions on the subject in this book can be found on www.Smashwords.com/profile/view/DivineTruth

### For more information go to:

Divine Truth (www.divinetruth.com)

Divine Truth Channel on YouTube (www.youtube.com/user/WizardShak)

Divine Truth FAQ Channel on YouTube (www.youtube.com/user/divinetruthfaq)

Table of Contents

1. Acts 1:9-11 Surely Jesus would return on the clouds?

2. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Why haven't Bible prophecies occurred if you're Jesus?

3. John 18:37 Were you saying that you were a king as Pilate had said?

4. Proverbs 16:18 You are arrogant believing you are Jesus, you are going to hell

5. Revelation 19:14-16 Are you claiming to be Jesus for power and control?

6. Romans 10:13 Will people only be saved believing you are Jesus?

7. Matthew 24 Mark 13 Luke 21 All have not seen your return, you can't be Jesus

8. You being Jesus rejects statements in book of Revelation

9. John 1:5, 6 If God is good & there is no Devil, who or what sustains the hells?

10. 1 John 1:5 How can God love me if Jesus wasn't sent to atone our sins?

1. Acts 1:9-11 Surely Jesus would return on the clouds?

**Mary:** The Bible says in Acts 1:9-11, "After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "Why do you stand here looking into the sky?" This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." So the question today is: Surely this means that Jesus will return on the clouds in the same manner he left the earth?

This is a comment that most Christians make to me, that I can't be Jesus because I didn't return on the clouds just as it says here in the book of Acts. But of course in the Book of Acts, most Christians also say that it'll be seen throughout the entire world, so there are a lot of physical impossibilities involved in having these scriptures fulfilled.

With this particular scripture it could mean a number of different things. Firstly, they are saying, "Look, why do you stand here looking at him? He will come the same way as he went." Now if you look at, 'the same way he went,' there was a small group of my followers present just before I ascended into heaven, as the saying goes; only a small group of my followers were present, that's all. The world didn't see me go and in fact not all of my followers saw me go. Now if that's the case, if I'm going to return in the same way then not all of my followers will see me return either.

So the meaning of the verse is actually unclear. You see, the people who followed me after I passed had a lot of feelings that I would return in their lifetime, and they often wrote about their feelings that I would return soon, at some time during their lifetime. But I'm going to return how I want to return and how God allows me to return, not necessarily in the manner in which people want me to return. So all of the statements in the Bible, and we've already talked about whether the Bible's true or not... obviously I know from my own experience that the Bible is not true anyway. But many of the statements in the Bible are based around what the disciples at the time wanted to happen rather than what would actually happen in the future. In addition, I said quite clearly to the disciples, in fact in a few verses above, I said quite clearly, "It is not known to you how the Father will act in his position of authority."

In fact in Acts 1, verse 7 it says, "And he, Jesus, said to them, 'It is not for you to know the times or the dates that the Father has set by his own authority.'" Now I've said that in one verse and then they make a heap of assumptions about it in another verse. Obviously it's not logical to make those assumptions after they've been told by the very person, that how he may or may not return was completely dependent upon his own and his Father's choice. So I feel that the big problem that most people face with regard to verses like this is that they want this particular verse to be true. There is no indication in the verse itself. It is not clearly stated what would actually occur. All it basically says is that I will come in the same manner as I went. How I went was in such a way that very few of my disciple's even saw my leaving. Under those circumstances, could it be that very few of the people who claim to be my disciples now, currently on the earth, would actually see my return and recognise it as my return? Could it be that that is meant? Well of course it could be that that is meant.

**Mary:** So we could interpret it in a number of ways couldn't we?

That's the issue.

**Mary:** We could interpret it literally as you coming down ...

... from the clouds.

**Mary:**... from the clouds.

By the way, the spirit world doesn't exist in the clouds. It's in a different dimension. So you know, that doesn't even make any sense really.

**Mary:** Yeah. We could interpret it as only a few ...

... of the followers who actually followed me would actually recognise my return. That has certainly happened. Very few of the people who purport to be my followers on earth right at this moment know that Jesus has returned.

**Mary:** And how else could you interpret it? Just that only people who were true disciples would see you return or ...

Yes. And I stated that that was the case in the first century. I stated that quite clearly, if you look at the Bible records. There's even quotations of me stating this in the Bible, that only the people who were born of God, who had been reborn through the new birth process would recognise me, and that the teachings that I was giving were coming from God. Most Christians then assume that they will all be those persons but the reality is that they are not, because they have not received the new birth, the majority, and they have not received Divine Love to the point where they could recognise who Jesus is and what his character is. So even for that the reality is that the majority of Christians today are not capable of recognising Jesus, and if you look on the forums on the internet and other things, many of them even realise that. They wonder, had Jesus appeared as I appeared in the first century claiming to be the messiah, whether they'd even recognise him. Many of them wonder that, and it's good for them to wonder that because the reality is that Jesus has already arrived and the majority of them haven't recognised it yet.

This is how I feel with these issues about my return _._ Also there is this common concept in the Christian community about my return that I'm going to come, destroy the wicked, take the righteous from the Earth and then the world, the Earth itself, will probably be destroyed. That's the general underlying viewpoint. Not all of the Christian religions see it that way but a fair majority do. Now when I was on earth in the first century I was a pacifist and would not agree to violence of any kind to any person whether they were my enemy or my friend. I stated quite categorically in the first century that if a person was violent to anybody, they were out of harmony with God's Love. I also stated quite categorically in the first century that if a person had an enemy they were to love them, rather than attempt to punish them. Then why would I ever return and kill the wicked? Why would I be involved in any genocide whatsoever? It makes no logical sense that I would change my personality in order to suit some of the feelings these people have.

Continuing with this question, the reality is that I have already returned in the manner in which I have chosen. It just so happens that it's not the manner that the average person, and particularly the average Christian on earth, wants me to return. That's the issue. The issue is what they want and not what I actually want. They want me to come and destroy the wicked. Now why do they want such a thing? Because they believe all sorts of things about God, that God would destroy the wicked. They believe that I, as God's messenger of truth, would want to destroy the wicked and none of these things are true. I don't want to destroy anybody. I want to save everyone, not destroy anyone.

In fact God doesn't want to destroy anyone either. All of God's Laws are perfect and so God's Laws are already correcting everyone and will continue to correct everyone, particularly after they've passed into the spirit world. They will definitely be corrected. God doesn't need to destroy anyone. I don't need to destroy anyone and I don't want to and God doesn't want to either. Now if you as a Christian want me to destroy anyone, you do not yet know love. You do not yet know love. That is the problem. Many of the verses that are quoted to me coming from Christians are coming from their understanding, or lack of understanding, of love. If they understood love they would realise that I would never want to be an unloving person. I was not an unloving person in the first century, even though the Bible tends to indicate otherwise in certain passages. I am not an unloving person now and I am never going to do something that is so unloving as to commit genocide. If I was ever going to do those things I would be comparable to Stalin or Hitler in terms of my soul development, and I am certainly not like any of those people.

So when you read the Bible and you come to understand all of these things about what the Bible says about my return, understand that most of them are coming from a lack of perspective about love, a lack of truth about the knowledge of God and God's Laws and God's universe and a lack of desire to understand my love for humankind. In reality, while you hold on to those belief systems, which can never be fulfilled... These verses, some of these verses, can never be fulfilled because they purport me to be a person that I am not. They purport me to be a person who wants to destroy, who wants to kill people, who wants to get rid of the unrighteous and so forth.

My feelings are that whether a person is unrighteous or righteous, all I would like to do is present the truth to them and let them make up their own mind as God does, let them make up their own mind to decide what they wish to do with the rest of their own life. That's all I wish to do and I certainly have no desire whatsoever to kill anybody or harm anybody in any way and these verses that indicate that I do are verses that are way out of harmony with love.

Now this particular verse doesn't indicate that. It just indicates this idea or concept that I will come on the clouds and every eye shall see me. Well, something that I would like to say is that my second coming hasn't finished yet. It's possible that in the future everyone may see me. Maybe not at the same time though because it's physically impossible for every person to see an individual at the same time and my feelings are that my second coming hasn't finished. It's only just begun in my opinion and so who knows what might happen in the future? Some of these verses may be fulfilled but not in the manner in which those people currently believe.

2. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Why haven't Bible prophecies occurred if you're Jesus?

**Mary:** The Bible says in 1st Thessalonians 4:13-18, "Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about these who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words." So the question is: If you really were, or are, Jesus, surely all of these events would have happened by now?

Well firstly the statement is a statement that is based upon whether the Bible is true or not. I've already discussed in other questions whether the Bible is true in all of its facets or not. But let's look at this verse more carefully. This verse was supposedly written by Paul, and I say 'supposedly' because often Paul himself didn't write passages that were attributed to him and they were often embellished later when Paul's words were copied. But let's assume for a moment that Paul wrote these words. I don't feel that it is a valid assumption, and I've spoken to Paul and I know that he didn't write a lot of these words. But let's assume that he did, for a moment. Basically what Paul's saying here in 1st Thessalonians is that his belief at the time that he was alive is that he would never die. He wouldn't die, he would wait for the Lord, as he calls me, to come and he would rise into the air, into the clouds with me. According to this verse, that was his belief system.

Now Paul died and this event never occurred. So you could basically say that this is a false prophecy in the Bible. At least it's a false prophecy in the Bible because Paul himself believed it to be true and it did not happen. He was referring to himself when he said, "And we who are still alive." Obviously he expected himself to be still alive when I came again. This was a part of his belief system, and it was a part of many of the disciples' belief systems that I would return very soon after I died, or a few years after I died I would return to see them all again, not understanding some of my words about when I would see them next. They assumed that when I died I would come back at some point in the future but it would be within the time that they would still be alive.

Paul himself, in this verse, assumed that I would come while he was still alive. Now obviously that never happened. I did not return to the earth while Paul was alive. This never happened. It is an event that was foretold to happen during Paul's lifetime and it never occurred. Many Christians then make interpretations of the event saying, "Oh, Paul wasn't really referring to himself here when he said 'we,' he was using some kind of 'royal we' that meant some people in the future," and so forth. But this is all just interpretation now. It's not the actual words that were spoken and it's an interpretation to meet a teaching or a belief that people have about what the potential would be when I return.

So again, it's not very logical to assume these particular things. It is very clear here that whoever wrote these words, and let's assume that it was Paul, whoever wrote these words believed that he would remain alive until I came again. Quite obviously I did not come while he was alive. So therefore his belief was false. Now it is his belief. I'm not saying that it was not the belief of the writer of the book, but his belief was false. It was something that never happened.

This is how I feel it is for a lot of Christians in their belief systems. They believe things based upon the words of other people who believed things that never happened in their lifetime. They are still continuing to hope that at some point in the future these events will occur. This is exactly the same as what happened with the Jews regarding me in the first century. I came to earth as the messiah. They did not recognise me as the messiah at that time and so they continually, even to this day, wait for another messiah to come, because the person who was the messiah came and they did not recognise him and also they did not believe what he was saying to be true. They have now waited an additional two thousand years for the messiah to come; he has now come a second time and they still haven't been able to recognise that he's come.

I feel that the Christians are doing the same thing here, with their interpretations of the Bible, as what the Jews did in the first century. Exactly the same thing. They interpret what they believe the messiah should be. In the Christians' case they interpret what they believe Jesus to be, and then they place their interpretations upon the analysis of the person who's claiming to be Jesus. In the first case the Jews put the interpretation upon a person, myself, who was claiming to be the messiah. They saw that I did not measure up to such claims as were contained in their written word and so then they claimed that I couldn't be the messiah. Nowadays the Christians claim that I can't be Jesus because I don't meet their requirements. It's almost a mirror-identical situation to that in the first century, what's happening with these particular things.

Now many of these things are never going to happen. This is called the Rapture. It's often referred to as the Rapture in Christian theology. It is never going to happen. Never. So please understand, any of you Christians out there who believe in this verse, this is never going to happen. I am never going to come to earth in this way. I have already chosen the way in which I'm coming to earth. And the way, by the way, wasn't chosen by myself but it was chosen by God in the sense that God's Laws dictate to me the way I can return.

I had a number of choices about how I could return. I could have returned in this manner but of course this manner would teach nothing and would actually cause people to have a lot of fear and other emotions that would be totally unnecessary for their future experience. I did not want to come back to earth in this manner and so I chose to come to earth in a different manner. It's quite simple. I was also not going to come in terms of 'just to save the righteous.' In fact, the Bible itself quite categorically demonstrates that I came to speak in the first century with people who were sinners as well as those who were righteous, and in this life I am doing exactly the same thing. My character has not changed. My character is not different from what it was in the first century. It has not changed. These verses will never be fulfilled because I choose to not fulfil them. Just because the Bible says that they are true, they are just the beliefs of people who purported to be my followers after my death who wrote down the words, hoping in their hope that I would do these things. And I am not going to do those things.

**Mary:** So, you are very clear that you are not going to do these things.

No.

**Mary:** Can you tell us why you would never come down with the voice of an archangel and do all these things with those who are alive and those who are dead. Why are you so clear that even if you could, this is something that you would never do?

Well firstly, God's Laws preclude me from doing many of the things that the Bible claims I should do on my return. For example, the Bible claims that I should be a participant, in fact the leader of, genocide of all of the people who do not believe in me. Now that's the same as Stalin wanting to commit genocide of all of the people who do not want to accept his rule in Russia. It's the same as Hitler having genocide of the Jews, all the people who he disapproved of or disagreed with. We know that any person who is in a condition of love would never do these things.

Now God's Laws preclude me from doing these things. If I wish to maintain a relationship with God I would never be able to do some of these things that are claimed, or the Bible claims, that I will do. That alone precludes me from acting in the manner the Bible states. In addition there is also my own will involved. "What do I want to achieve on my return?" is the question.

Many Christians have a whole set of things that they want me to achieve. Many of these things that they want me to achieve are completely out of harmony with love. For example, one thing that many Christians want me to do is to destroy any person who is not a believer. Now I do not want to destroy any person who is not a believer. I want to help them by answering their questions, become a believer if they wish to. That's what I would like to do instead of that. I am never going to engage doing something just because a group of people who purport to be my followers want me to do it. I am never going to do something that's out of harmony with love. So I can't act because of those reasons.

In addition to that there are also my personal desires. Well, my personal desires have nothing to do with coming on a cloud and doing some kind of show-offy thing in order to prove to everybody that what I'm saying about God is true. I don't want to do those things. I would like people to be motivated to have a relationship with God through their hearts, not through some kind of external demonstration of my power and glory so that they feel impelled by this external demonstration to have some faith. I would like them to demonstrate faith in my teachings without me having to go through all of the rigmarole of having all of these outward displays of power and glory and otherwise.

I'm not saying that at some point in the future there might not be things that I do that will help people clearly develop their faith. What I'm saying is that it is not something that I feel is of primary importance to me, to come in that manner. In fact, coming in the manner that is portrayed in the Bible, to me feels quite negative. If a person, and we'll discuss this on another FAQ, if a person believes that I'm going to come to destroy the wicked and I'm going to come to become a ruler then... I don't have any desire to be a ruler. I don't have any desire to destroy anybody. I don't have any desire to force people to do anything. God doesn't either actually.

**Mary:** So why would people believe, why would people want to cling to this verse then? What would be the investment in continuing to believe this?

Well, I feel that there are many emotional investments, which I have a lot of compassion for, of a person wanting to believe such a verse. You see, many people who have done good, or believe themselves to have done good, while they're on earth, are looking for a reward for their doing of good. They don't understand that there are automatic rewards that are happening in their soul and automatic rewards that happen after their death that far exceed their current expectations. They want some kind of delineation, if you like, between the people who are doing good and the people who are doing bad. They also want, because of their anger and rage, to punish the people who are doing bad. They have some emotional investment in God being a punishing God. God is not a punishing God, and God is never going to be a punishing God. God doesn't need to be a punishing God because God's Laws control the universe perfectly and there's no need to punish anybody. God's Laws are corrective and not punitive. God's Laws are all created to correct people and not to punitively punish them. I feel that there are deep misunderstandings about the nature of God and deep misunderstandings about my own nature that cause people to wish to believe in these verses.

But there are also deep misunderstandings about the actual unloving emotions that exist in the individual. An individual, who wishes to believe that I am coming to punish somebody or to kill them or destroy them, obviously has some emotions inside of themselves where they would like the wicked to be punished and destroyed. This is not what God likes and it's not what I like, and it's quite clear from my first century life that I did not want this. It's quite clear from what I said about God in my first century life that God doesn't want this. And yet the Bible has contradictory statements to those things that I actually stated in the first century and that my character displayed.

**Mary:** So basically you're saying that the 1st Thessalonians quote that we referred to is actually demonstrating a punishing... If it were to be true, it would mean that you and God had a punishing attitude to people who were not ...

Well, not specifically this verse. This verse is referring specifically to what is classified as the Rapture and the Rapture is this concept that God is going to come, or Jesus is going to come, and take all of the people that are on Earth who are his believers up to him, and then who knows what's going to happen on earth after that. Now there are verses in the Bible, in Peter for example, that would tend to suggest that Earth is going to be destroyed by fire, and many Christians do believe that. Some believe that it's symbolical and the earth will just no longer have truth available on it, and so everything on earth will be terrible, or something like that. There are many contrary belief systems amongst Christians; that's why there are so many Christian denominations. They all have different belief systems about what the Bible actually says.

But this verse is used in conjunction with these other verses to demonstrate the entirety of the events that would occur at the time of my coming. Basically Christians are saying that because they have not been Raptured, they have not been called to heaven yet, I can't be Jesus. And it's totally illogical to make such a statement. The Rapture is never going to occur, in future never going to occur. It's an event... trust me, there will be Christians in a hundred years' time still waiting for this and then potentially in a thousand years' time still waiting for this and it's never going to happen, just as a lot of the things that the disciples and apostles believed in the first century would occur after my death never occurred.

We need to come face to face with the fact that we want them to occur for a reason. We need to examine whether our reasons for us wanting these things to occur are pure or whether they are based on some very dark emotions, based on wanting to punish or harm other people. The majority of people have dark emotions in them and that's why I said in the first century, and it is quoted in the Bible, again, not as accurately as it could be, but I said similar to this. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter into the kingdom of heaven but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day..." - and this is the day that they enter into the spirit world - "... 'Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Get away from me. You're evil-doers'."

The question has to be asked, "Why would people who claim that I am their Lord, or claim that I am their saviour in some way, and who claim that they have been doing everything God wants, why would I be calling them evil-doers?" And the answer is quite plain. Because even though they had these sets of belief systems, their emotions and their actions were unloving and they did evil while they were purporting to be truthful. And if you look historically at the Christian faith, we can see that there are many times in human history where the Christian faith became very evil and very black in terms of its dominant emotions regarding what it was ready and willing to do in order to hurt and harm other people. You look through the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, all actions taken by the church, the so-called church of God, the so-called 'My church.' These are all actions which I must condemn as evil and these people were all waiting for me to come through their lifetime, and I never came through their lifetime, in the manner in which they expected.

Now to me these verses should give Christians some pause and cause them to reflect. What is really important is the development of love inside of the soul. That is the thing of importance, not the belief system about my coming. Every time you attack me with the belief system you have about my coming, you are demonstrating the lack of love in your soul. This lack of love is what's going to determine your future location in the spirit world. It's not going to be determined by your desire to be in a certain location and it's not going to be determined by the fact that you believed Jesus of the Bible. It's going to be determined by how much love you have in your soul. Many Christians nowadays are starting to get that, I feel. Many Christians now, you see on forums and so forth, many Christians are starting to actually consider, "Is the God the Bible portrays, the real personality and characteristics of God?" Many are considering that it is not.

**Mary:** Because if we look at the Bible in its entirety it carries a lot of contradictions about the nature of God doesn't it?

Yes. On the one hand it says that God is loving and perfect and on the other hand it says He's a genocidal maniac who killed millions and millions of people at the same time. Which one is He? Most Christians would argue that he's both. Well I can't agree. The whole concept that a loving person would kill other people is flawed. That's why I said in the first century, "You must love your neighbour as yourself," and "You must love your enemy." What's the benefit of just loving your friend? Love your enemy. Like, if you love your enemy you won't want to kill your enemy. Now if God loves his enemies he won't want to kill them. God will want to help them change. This is how I am. This is how God is. Any verse that reads differently is obviously not the truth. Whether it comes from the Bible or not is immaterial. It's not the truth.

It's interesting though that even the Quran has very similar verses. Any person that does not follow their practice, the Muslim practices, follow Mohammed and his teachings, will be condemned under the same verses that the Bible condemns any person not following Christian practices. Now this is an indication that none of them are right and that all of them have flaws, in that when they state that God will destroy the wicked, they are completely out of harmony with love. God will not destroy anyone. I will not destroy anyone. Mohammed, if he were in a loving state would never want to destroy anyone. And so none of the destruction of these so called wicked is ever going to occur. What will occur is that they will be corrected. They will be corrected in time through the Laws of God. The Laws of God are perfect; correction will automatically occur.

**Mary:** And you're saying that it won't happen in one moment, in one hour, in one day ...

No.

**Mary:** That it's already happening?

Every moment is really a judgement day or a judgement moment for ourselves in the choices that we make. Every time that we do something that's out of harmony with love, immediately we do it there's an immediate penalty on our soul, given not by God but the Laws that God has created, that we will have to compensate for some point in the future. The same applies to all the good things we do. There is an immediate benefit to our soul, an immediate benefit to the soul of others, and an immediate gift that God gives us as a result, that we will reap at some point in the future. You will reap what you sow at some point in the future.

These are all true principles that are stated in the Bible, about our future, and how God will react to our life. But if we believe that there's going to be some kind of day when Jesus comes, destroys all the wicked, keeps all the righteous with him, or takes all the righteous to be with him, then we are going to be severely disappointed because that will never happen in the future. It has not happened in the past. All of the disciples who believed that in the past, for two thousand years it has not happened and it's not going to happen in the future either, because it cannot happen. It cannot happen and God and myself be in a state of love. It can only happen if God was like the devil is, supposedly. It could only happen if I was like someone like Stalin or Hitler. That's the only way it could happen and we are certainly not like that. God's not like that and I'm not like that either.

3. John 18:37 Were you saying that you were a king as Pilate had said?

**Mary:** In John 18:37, the Bible says: "'You are a king then!' said Pilate. Jesus answered, 'You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.'" And our question is, "Were you saying that you were a king?"

Well, the problem with the Bible in this verse is that many different translations have many different ways of saying the verse. This New International version says, "'You are a king then?' said Pilate. Jesus answered, 'You are right in saying I am a king.'" The implication there is that I'm saying that Pilate is right when he said that I was a king.

The reality is that Pilate accused me of saying that I was a king, but I never answered the question. That's what actually happened. But of course just a few words here and there can completely change the meaning of a text and the copyists of the Bible have been able to insert a few words here and there with much impunity of course, and as a result have completely changed the meaning of the text. I had this discussion with Pilate, I was there; I know what happened. I did not say I was a king. I've never said that I was a king. I said that I was going to be the leader of the Celestial Kingdom. I said that I was, because I was the first person to enter it and in fact, I created it through entering it first.

I created the Celestial Kingdom, but I always viewed God as the king. God is always my king and God is always everyone's king whether they recognise God as king or not. The real point of the verse, the real point of what I said to him is, in fact, "For this reason I was born and for this reason I came into the world: To testify to the truth." I wasn't saying that I came into the world and was born to be a king. I was saying that I came into the world and was born to testify to Divine Truth, to testify to what God's Truth is. That was the main point of the verse.

The reality is, I do not ever wish to be king. The Bible is quite plain in fact about that and we'll discuss that in perhaps another FAQ. But I didn't want to be a king. I came to testify to the Truth of God and through the connection that I had with God, I could easily say that everyone who listens to my voice is going to benefit from what they hear. And I believe that completely now. Otherwise I wouldn't be speaking. Anybody who listens to what I'm talking about, which is the truth, will benefit greatly through what they hear, particularly if they apply the things I'm teaching.

That has not changed in the last 2,000 years. I came to be the messenger of truth, not to be a king. God is king and therefore there is no need for me to become a king. There is no way I ever wish to set myself up in opposition or as a subordinate position to God with regard to kingship. In fact, if a person reflects upon the Old Testament, they will realise that all the way through the Old Testament there were the times when the Jews viewed God as their king and then they wanted an earthly king. If they reflect upon Samuel's words they would realise that Samuel was saying to them, "Look, you want an earthly king because you don't accept God's kingship." And many of my disciples in the first century, wanted me to be king. They wanted the messiah to be a king because they could not personally accept God's kingship in their life. They did not have this personal relationship with God in which they accepted God as their king rather than trying to accept some other human as their king. Now all I am is a human. I am a brother. How can I be a king over anyone when all I am is your brother? It's impossible for me to accept any kingship from anyone. The reality is that if God gave it to me I still could not accept it because I am just a brother. God is the king and I know from my experience with God that God is never going to offer me kingship of anything because I am just the brother of every person on the planet and every person who's ever lived.

**Mary:** It's a very common sort of imagery or analogy that's used around your identity, isn't it. King or prince, and it's referenced at other points in the Bible is it?

Yes. Yeah definitely. And there are certain things of which I am the prince, or that I am a messenger of truth, but not in regard to political rulership. I feel we need to discuss political rulership in more detail. Perhaps in one of the other FAQs on this subject we'll go through this issue of political rulership and my opinion of political rulership.

4. Proverbs 16:18 You are arrogant believing you are Jesus, you are going to hell

**Mary:** If you believe yourself to be Jesus, then you have a huge amount of arrogance and hubris. Jesus was a far better person than you are now and better in the first century that you will ever be. The Bible says in Proverbs 16:18, "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." You are going to hell for your claims and misleading people.

It's not really a question is it?

**Mary:** Not really, and I've got to say, I struggle with how to convey it because I don't really want to embody the emotions of the person who made that statement.

Yeah, of course. They are the emotions of this person, a Christian who is judging me; they are not even letting God judge me. They have judged me, which is very interesting in itself because it's directly against what their own Bible says they should be doing. I find the hypocrisy of many of the Christians who email me these kinds of emails quite large, in the sense that their own Bible tells them they shouldn't be doing the things that they are doing when they say these kinds of things to me.

However I'm perfectly happy to address the claims that I'm arrogant and I'm perfectly happy to address the claims that I'm going to hell, because there are certain truths in amongst there that need to be said. Firstly, we could look at the claims that I'm arrogant because I'm saying that I'm Jesus. Well firstly, it's not a very logical statement, because what if I am Jesus? Then I am obviously not being arrogant if I'm claiming to be Jesus, the person I am. Also, let's say that I'm deluded. It could be that I'm quite a humble man but quite deluded and manipulated by some other force, let's call it a spirit one. They would call it the devil. Actually I could be quite misled and deluded, claiming myself to be Jesus and still be quite a humble person. So the reality is that I might not be arrogant there either. I could also just be having a joke with everybody. That's a possibility. And if I am, then that's possibly a bit of a cruel joke, so perhaps I might be able to be labelled as cruel, but if I'm just having a joke with people I'm certainly not necessarily arrogant. I might just be pointing out a heap of false beliefs that people have as a result of their Bible-based teachings.

Now obviously if I'm not Jesus, and I know I'm not and I'm claiming that I'm Jesus, then I'm arrogant. I agree with that. But that's only one of very many possibilities, and you can't say for certain that just because I'm saying that I'm Jesus actually means that I'm arrogant. Arrogance comes from a condition of a lack of humility and if I lacked humility then I'd certainly be arrogant. But the people around me generally know, and you live with me and you know, that I'm humble to all things. So the reality is that in my day-to-day life I don't demonstrate arrogance.

Now most of the people believe that I'm arrogant as soon as I claim to be Jesus and my suggestion is that at some point when Jesus returns he's going to claim to be Jesus. Does that mean he's being arrogant too? Of course not. So, I am Jesus. I claim to be Jesus. That's not an arrogant state and what I'm pointing out is that I fail to see any logic in the accusation, for a start. All of the Christians who claim that I'm being arrogant by claiming to be Jesus and all of the media who claims that I'm being arrogant by claiming to be Jesus are missing one important fact. And that is that if I am Jesus I'm not being arrogant at all. So my suggestion is that their 'logic' is very illogical. It makes no sense and it appears to me that people on earth are willing to imbibe a lack of logic based on whether they want to believe something or not. My suggestion is, "Let's be more logical." If you're logical you'll easily be able to determine whether a person is what other people claim him to be or not.

So that's the first thing I think I'd like to say about this claim that I'm arrogant. I am Jesus therefore I am not arrogant. Secondly, the second thing I'd like to point out to people is that I'm actually much better right now than the Jesus that the Bible portrays. In fact, in the first century I was also much better than the Jesus the Bible portrays me to be. If I can point out areas that I am much better... Now if you look at the Book of Revelation for example. In the New Testament Book of Revelation, it says, "Jesus would come and his robe would be dipped in blood, his name would be the Word of God, the armies of heaven..." - this is in Revelations 19:13-15 - "The armies of heaven were following him riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron sceptre. He treads the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."

Now I am much better than that. I have no desire to destroy anybody. I don't want to strike down the nations. I am not coming with an iron sceptre. I am coming with the ideas and ideals of love. I am not going to tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty because God has no wrath and no fury. This verse portrays me as some power megalomaniac which I am not and never have been. I am much better than that. I don't have any of those desires in me whatsoever.

Another verse I'd like to mention is in John 5:22-23. It says "Moreover the Father judges no-one." These are my words supposedly. "Moreover the Father judges no-one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him."

Now, this portrays me as a person who is seeking honour, who is seeking to be able to judge his fellow man. I have never been a person who would want to seek judgement over another and I will never be such a person. God does not want me to judge anybody; God himself does not judge anybody because all of God's Laws do it for him. There is no need for me to be a judge of anybody ever. I have never claimed to be a judge of anybody but this verse is stating that I did. This Jesus is a lot worse than I am. I have no desire to be a judge of anybody. I am not arrogant enough to assume that God would ever put me in a position of judgement of another. So I am much better than the person portrayed in that verse.

If we look at some other verses like Matthew 25:31-33 for example, where it talks about the end of the days, it says "When the Son of Man comes in his glory..." I'm meant to be saying these words, as if I'm seeking glory. I'm not seeking any glory. I have never sought any glory. It says "... and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on his throne in heavenly glory." I don't have a throne. I am never going to have a throne. I do not want kingship. I am better than that. I know that my brothers are my brothers. I do not assume that I am better than any of my brothers and sisters. It says, "All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate people." I will not separate people. Their own actions separate them, one from another. Their own actions tell whom they belong to, whether they belong to God or whether they are an enemy of God or try to set themselves up as an enemy of God. It says, "The king will reply..." This is referring to myself. "'I tell you the truth. Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" Like, it's basically saying that I'm going to commit genocide of any unbeliever.

Now if you look on the earth at this point in time, and if you assume that all of the Christians of any denomination are believers, that's about one and half billion believers, that means that there are over five and a half billion non-believers, of what the Bible says, presently on this earth. Now according to this verse, I am going to kill them all. That would make me the worst person in human history when it comes to genocide. That's what it would make me. I am never going to do that. I am better than that. It's not hard to be better than that actually. The average person on the planet is better than that. So I am much better than what the Bible portrays me to be.

If you look at how the Bible says I treated women, for example... It says that a woman came to me "... and knelt before him." It says, "'Lord help me', she said. He replied, 'It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs. '"Now a woman is coming to me, according to this verse, asking for assistance, and according to this verse I am stating that I wouldn't give her the bread of life because it would be taking the bread of life away from the children of God, the Israelites and giving it to somebody else, because she was supposedly a Samaritan, or a Canaanite woman. And is this what I would do? Is this how I treat women? I treat women far better than that. I treat people far better than that. I treat people as if they are better than dogs. I don't call them dogs. They are better than dogs, although sometimes they don't act better than dogs, which is unfortunate. But I don't call them dogs when they are humans and I don't treat women as if they are worse than men. I'm better than that. I'm better than the Jesus portrayed here in your Bible, in the Bible that people say that they believe.

That was Matthew 15:25-26. If you look at Matthew 10:34-35, here's another verse. It says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." Now, what a load of rubbish, to be honest. I never came to bring a sword to the earth. It says next, "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies will be members of his own household." Now while I do agree that many people in a household may set themselves up as enemies of each other, it will not be because of anything that I've done. It will be completely the opposite of that. It will be because they do not want to follow my teachings or advice. I came to bring peace to the earth, not a sword. The Bible says there that I stated that I came to do the opposite. Now if anybody in this world currently said to you, "I came to bring a sword to the world," how would you view him? You'd view him as a what?

**Mary:** Violent.

As a violent...

**Mary:** Someone seeking power, someone wishing to harm people.

Harm others and purposefully wanting to harm others. That's really what this is saying. Because this is the Bible and because I'm meant to be Jesus, of course I can get away with all of this? No, no I can't. This is unloving behaviour. I would never be involved with it. I'm better than that. And to be honest the average person on earth is better than that too. So again I can't see any correlation between how the Bible describes me and how I myself am. When people say to me that I will never be the person that the Jesus in the first century was, I say, "Well, if you're basing that comment on what you read in your Bible, thank goodness for that. Because whatever you believe the Jesus of the Bible to be, it doesn't portray him as a very good person. It portrays him as a power-mad megalomaniac who's willing to commit genocide, who treats women badly and treats families badly and I do none of those things. So I'm better than that."

**Mary:** I suppose there are a lot of contradictions in there as well. There are a lot of accounts of you being very loving and kind. This is where people are selective in what they see as your character.

Very much so, but also there is this underlying justification that people who are wicked deserve to be treated in this way, and I can't agree with that. According to what I said in the first century, some of which is included in the same book of the Bible, it says that people who are wicked, deserve to be loved. In fact, in Matthew, I say that people need to be loved. I said, "You have heard it said, love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. If you love those who love you what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" The average person on earth treats people well who they love, generally. But how hard is it to love your enemy? Much, much more difficult. I was encouraging people to love your enemy. I said that that's what God was like. He loved his enemies. Now any person who loves his enemies won't kill them. Killing a person is murder and it's the height of unloving behaviour towards your enemy. How contradictory is that?

Again, it's driven by this underlying desire in most people that they want somebody to come along and get rid of the people they want to get rid of or, to be more specific, to get rid of the people who they have already judged as wicked. Not God, but they have judged as wicked. They want me to get rid of them for them and they want me to save them because they judge themselves as righteous. Now any person who has that feeling is already wicked. That's already a wicked concept because the reality is that unless you see your enemies as people you need to love, you are not following my teachings. And if I came to destroy the wicked, I would not be following my own teachings, which is hypocritical. It would be the pinnacle of hypocritical behaviour.

I would be the pinnacle of it if I did this. I would be the genocide of the entire existence of mankind. I would be the person who engaged in doing it. How could I ever do such a thing when I was advising people to be loving in their behaviour towards their enemies? It makes no logical sense to believe that the Jesus of the Bible is better than I am, because the reality is that the Jesus of the Bible is willing to do worse things than I would ever be willing to do. And I say to any person who's listening, that if you think that I, Jesus, am like the character in the Bible that it says that I am then you have a very poor opinion of me already. A very poor opinion of me and to be honest, I am never going to be such a person. In my worst state I was never such a person.

I feel that these particular statements are just statements born out of a totally illogical analysis of the Bible. These Christians make these statements towards me saying that I am worse and will never be Jesus' bootlace, while at the same time Jesus is willing to do all of these things which, by the way, these same Christians condemn in any world ruler doing the same thing, which is ironic. The Christians themselves condemn world rulers such as Hitler in Nazi Germany. In fact, that was their justification for going to war with him. If I am going to set myself up like a Hitler and destroy all the people that I think should be destroyed and save all the people that I think should be saved, surely that makes me no better than the man that they condemned in the second world war. It makes no logical sense at all does it? So that's the second reason why I feel this person's comment is flawed.

They have also said that I will go to hell because of my arrogance and hubris. Now, a person who believes in love and practices love and truth in their day-to-day life such as I do can never go to hell. That's the reality. God has made a system where the only people who go to hell are the people who are unloving and the people who are violent and the people who are destructive and the people who are damaging other people, and I'm not doing any of those things. So it's actually a physical impossibility for me to go to hell, in any sense.

Also, hell as it's understood by the Christians is ruled by a Satan or devil. But there is no Satan or devil. There is no devil that rules the hells and so I can never go to hell to be tormented by this Satan or devil anyway. This is another false belief perpetrated in order to scare people. I am never going to go to hell, even though you want me to. For those people who sent me this question, even though you want me to go to hell, I am never going to go to hell. I am completely safe from it because I practice love in my day-to-day life and I practice truth in my day–to-day life and I am sincere with everything that I do and say. Whether I'm misled or not is immaterial. The fact is that I practice these things in my day-to-day life and so I cannot go to hell.

By the way, any of you who practice the same things, you can't go to hell either. You can't go to hell when you are practising love. You only go to the hells of the spirit world when you don't practice love. And this is what I suggested and that is recorded in the gospel accounts. There's a record of me talking about the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man treated Lazarus badly. Lazarus couldn't even eat from his table. He had to eat what the dogs ate. The rich man treated him badly and unlovingly. He didn't kill him. He just treated him badly and he went to hell. Imagine what's going to happen to people who kill people. They are going to go to a worse condition again. That's what I stated in the first century as well. So their own Bible contradicts itself with regard to what would be the outcome for a person who believes untruth.

I stated in the first century that it wasn't the belief of anything that mattered, it was the practice of love that mattered instead, and if you practise love, you will always be in a better condition. That's what makes you my disciples, when you practise love. If you can't practise love, you're not my disciple yet, even though you think you are. There are many people who are listening to my words today who are still not my disciples either because they are not practising love in their day-to-day life. They are not acting in harmony with love in what they do. Again, I can't agree with a lot of what they say.

There's a lovely verse in John 5 which I would like to mention, because it's a verse that most Christians probably don't think too much about perhaps. It's in John 5:39-40 and this is what it says. It says, "You diligently study the scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

Now in the first century, I had many people who called the Torah the scriptures, or they included the Prophets sometimes as the scriptures. They said, exactly as the Christians are saying today, that because I wasn't coming as the Prophets and the Torah had said, they said, "You're not coming as a king and you're not going to destroy. You're meant to be coming as a king. You're meant to get rid of the Roman yoke." Like, what difference is there between that and the Christian belief today? "You're meant to be coming as a king and getting rid of the wicked yoke," is the only difference in the statement. And I'm saying to them, "Look, you studied the scriptures, the so-called scriptures, diligently and yet you can't even recognise the person that the scriptures foretell is coming, because you do not understand his role. You do not understand what my role is. My role is not to destroy the wicked. It is to help the wicked change. My role is not to harm any person but rather to help them change through truth."

So any person who believes otherwise, might be a diligent studier of the scriptures, but at the end of the day they are wrong. They are wrong because they do not understand the role of love in my life and in my character and nature. Nor do they understand the role of love in God and God's Life, and God's Nature. Nor do they understand our underlying desire, which is to change people who are wicked, to help them become better people, if they want to change; we don't want to force it upon them. We don't want to control them in their behaviour.

And I feel quite strongly that any person who tells me that I'm going to hell for my behaviour has no understanding whatsoever of God and God's Nature, nor do they have any understanding whatsoever of the emotions that are inside of themselves which are very very damaging, which are judgemental, which I condemned and it is recorded, ironically, in their own Bible that I condemned. I said that if you judge others... according to the Bible, it says that you'd be better off putting a rock around your neck and throwing yourself into the sea. Now that is true.

**Mary:** Is that what you said?

Well, I said something similar to that, yes.... A millstone around your neck and thrown into the sea. In other words, you'd be better off suiciding than judging yourself or judging others, because that's what you're doing to your soul. You're pulling your soul down, down, down when you judge other people. So when you judge me - just because I'm saying that I'm Jesus, you judge me - you are demonstrating that you are breaking your own Jesus words, in your own Bible that you say is God's Word. You are demonstrating you are a hypocrite actually.

Now I'm not stating that I believe everything in the Bible is God's Word, because I don't. I have never believed it. I have the advantage of not believing it because I was there, and I know what I said and I know what I didn't say. I have the advantage over the average person in the sense that I know that it was false and I was falsely portrayed. As I've just pointed out from those verses, I have been deeply falsely portrayed as some kind of power-hungry glory-maniac who wants to kill people and cause trouble on the earth and cause a lack of peace and the sword and treat woman badly, and none of these things is what I was. These are all just statements that were made, and I feel that many Christians, if they felt their heart, they'd go, "Wow, do I really believe Jesus was like this? Because if I believe he was like this he's not much different to Stalin or Hitler." And I'm a lot different to both of them. Although, even with them I hope that they will change and become like God.

5. Revelation 19:14-16 Are you claiming to be Jesus for power and control?

**Mary:** When you say that you are Jesus, most people believe that this means you want power and control over other people. The main reason for that is that the Bible says things like in Revelations 19:14-16: "The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth was a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron sceptre. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has the name written: King of Kings and Lord of Lords." So, are you just claiming you are Jesus in order to have power and control over people?

Wow, you know, that verse is pretty intense isn't it, and completely incorrect, by the way, in the sense that I would never have such an idea, of wanting to kill anybody or to be the expression of God's wrath, because God doesn't have any wrath. God doesn't have any fury and God hasn't got a winepress of his anger that I'm meant to tread. I am not King of Kings and I am not Lord of Lords. God is King of Kings and God is Lord of Lords and I am none of those things. I am just a brother and friend of any person who wishes to be my brother and friend, and even the brother and friend of many people who want to be my enemies. So the reality is that these verses have no construction in reality. I do not want to have power over anybody and in fact there are Bible verses that demonstrate that I did not want to have power over anybody. Again, the Bible is quite contradictory on this issue of my desire for power and control.

If I look, for instance, at in John 6:14-15 it says, "After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did they began to say 'Surely this is the prophet who is to come into the world'", referring to me as the messiah. "Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force withdrew again to a mountain by himself." Now I opposed anybody making me king by force. In other words, I am never ever going to be a king of anybody, if it means being a king of them by force.

According to other scriptures in the Bible, God is offering me kingship by force. Now why would I on one hand reject it and then on the other hand, because it came from God, accept it? It makes no logical sense whatsoever. I am never going to be king by force; even God does not establish kingship by force. God is King because all of God's Laws and rules govern the entire universe. Whether we accept the kingship or not, God doesn't force us to accept it. If God never forces acceptance of his own kingship, why would he encourage me to enforce a kingship of my own. It makes, again, no logical sense.

The Bible is way out of harmony with Truth and it's way out of harmony here with my desires. I do not desire to control or have power over anyone. All I desire to do is do what we are doing now, share Divine Truth with anybody who will listen. Thank you for listening. That's all I am currently doing and that's all I desire to do. I feel quite strongly that people have their own will. God has given them this gift of will to exercise how they see fit. Now if they decide to exercise their will in a wicked and evil manner then God's Laws correct them. If they desire to exercise their will in a loving and positive manner, God's Laws reward them. That's how the whole universe has been set up.

We don't see this happening on the earth very easily at the moment, because the majority of the earth is against God and God's Laws, but this is something that's very much established in the spirit world already, which is why I established my kingdom in the spirit world first. I did this because I realised that there were different constraints placed by the laws, and in fact that free will was less able to be engaged in the spirit world if you acted out of harmony with the Laws of God. I understood that there was a restraint placed upon the will in correction, whereas here on earth there is no restraint placed upon the will and that is to enable people to make a choice. They can choose to be bad if they want to be bad, they can choose to be good if they want to be good. They will feel the results of it in their future but it won't be from anything I have done and it won't be from anything God has done aside from setting up the Laws in the first place.

So there is no need for me to be a king. There's no need for me to be a lord of lords. I have no desire for such things. I have no desire for kingship or power or control over anybody else, as everyone around me knows. I have very little to do with their day-to-day lives. If they ask me a question I give them a direct, honest, firm answer about what I know to be the truth. If I don't know it to be the truth I say, "I'm not sure, this is what I feel at the moment." And many people then take that to be true but that's their own issue because I've told them quite clearly that I'm not sure. With other issues I am very sure about what is going to happen and I'm very sure about what I observe and I state with surety those particular things but I have no desire to lord it over other people, control their lives or dictate to them what they need to do in their day-to-day life. Their future is completely in their own hands and I do not wish to have any part of their future except that I would love them to come to accept the Divine Truth that I've come to accept because of the joy and happiness that it's going to bring them in their own lives. That's the only purpose for me doing it.

I feel though, again the Bible is contradictory on these matters, because it's interesting that on one hand God offers me kingship and then on the other hand, if you look at Matthew 4, it says Satan offers me the same thing. Now I rejected it from Satan. Why do you think I'm going to accept it from God if he ever offered it? And the reality is that God would never offer such a thing. I am his child. There is no need for me to be a king. I have set up a kingdom but it is God's Kingdom, of which I am a subject. Now I am helping it come into being through my actions in distributing the Divine Truth but I am not setting it up so that I can rule over anyone. People in that kingdom do listen to my voice, but they listen to my voice because they can feel it to be the voice of love and the voice of truth, not because of my having any power or threatening their life in any way, as the Bible seems to suggest.

6. Romans 10:13 Will people only be saved believing you are Jesus?

**Mary:** Many Christians believe that by calling on Jesus they will be saved. They base this belief on the scripture in Romans 10:13 and similar verses, which state: "For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." By claiming that you are Jesus, are you not saying to people that they will only be saved if they believe that you are Jesus?

Well firstly, if we look at many of these verses, they are all quotations from the Old Testament of the Bible. Now I wasn't around when the Old Testament was written. I think the latest verse of the Old Testament was written more than 500 years before I arrived on the planet, so these verses obviously did not refer specifically to myself. They refer to God. Because many Christians believe that I am God they then assume through this belief that I was being referred to in these verses. But if we look at Romans 10:13 for instance, that verse is a direct quotation from Joel chapter 2 and this was written close to 600 years or so, even a bit further I think, before I came into existence. So they referred to God.

In fact it's interesting how the verses actually misquote the Old Testament to a degree, because if you look at the original text of the Old Testament, wherever it says "the Lord your God," it actually uses the tetragram which is a series of texts that can be translated to YHWH in our language. Now the Jews' language at the time, the Hebrew language, did not have any vowels. So YHWH could be Yeehwah or Yahweeh, or it could be all sorts. It was translated in some Bibles as Yahweh. It was translated in some other Bibles as Jehovah. So the translation from Joel should read Jehovah your God. Now anybody who was a Jew who read that verse would think that Jehovah, Yahweh was their God, because that's who we believed our God to be and that's what I was taught in the first century, that Yahweh or Jehovah was my God. It was the name of God, if you like. That's why the verse says that anyone who calls on the name of God or the name of Jehovah would be saved; in other words, anyone who recognised God, Jehovah God, the actual real God of the universe, which is what we Jews called God at the time, Jehovah or Yahweh. Over time of course, we didn't use that word because it was too holy to be spoken, but initially that's how we termed God, the ruler of the universe.

The verse in Romans was a direct quotation from that verse in Joel, so it would make sense then that it was referring to God, not myself. Anyone who calls on the name of God will be saved. Of course, then you have to ask the question, "What does it mean to call on the name of God? Does it mean that all I've got to do is yell out Yahweh and I'll be saved? Obviously not. Because according to my words, that are recorded in the New Testament of the Bible, it required character development and it required love, development in love. So the reality is that the verse itself is misconstrued by many Christians and as a result they then imply that you have to call on my name, Jesus, in order to be saved.

Now as I said in the Book of Matthew, and I'll read this in Matthew chapter 7, I said that not everyone saying to me "Lord, Lord" will enter into the kingdom of the heavens. That is in Matthew 7. According to my words, I'm saying that not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord," not everyone who calls on my name will be saved. Later in Romans it says that everyone who calls on my name will be saved, which is obviously a contradiction. I never said that everyone who calls on my name will be saved. In fact I said that everyone who calls my name in the spirit world after they've passed, if they call Jesus to them, I will go to them and if they have been practisers of evil, I will say to them, "It doesn't matter how much you call me your Lord. It doesn't matter how much you call me your master. It doesn't matter how much you call me the person who's your saviour. If you've practised evil in your life on earth, you will have to go through the consequences of practising such evil."

So the reality is, being saved is not as simple as what many people would portray it to be. Now some Christians then extend it and say, "What was really being meant was that by calling on the name of Jesus you were accepting the vicarious atonements, sacrifice, the blood of Jesus as your saviour." I must say categorically, no blood of mine saves anything. It can't even save a rat from death, let alone a human. My blood will not save you. Your belief in my blood will not save you in the spirit world from any evil that you have done on earth. The only thing that is going to save you is your repentance for what you have done, the recognition of your own actions that are out of harmony with love and then addressing these actions that are out of harmony with love in a loving manner so that you get rid of the reason why you did them out of your heart.

That's the only thing that is going to save you. I cannot save you. My words can save you if you practise them, but only if you practise them. If you hear my words and don't practise them, then you will be just the same as if you'd never heard them at all. In fact, you'll actually be worse off than if you'd never heard them at all because anybody who has heard the words and still doesn't practice them already has a degree of responsibility that a person who's never heard the words doesn't have.

So any Christian who believes that they can call on any part of me, whether it be my blood, my body, my life, my name or any other thing, and be saved is completely out of harmony with what I've taught that is recorded in the Bible, but also what is the truth. Believing such a thing, all it does is damage you. It just damages your future progression. That's all it does.

**Mary:** So then, you are not saying that people will only be saved if they believe that you're Jesus?

No. People can believe I'm Jesus and it won't change one single thing in their life in the future after they pass if they are out of harmony with love. It won't help them at all. There are many people who are in harmony with love, who do not believe that I am Jesus until they pass and they are better off because they have brought their life into harmony with love. It's the love that's in their soul that dictates their actions and therefore dictates their future life. Nothing else. Not their belief systems, not what they intellectually think or what they intellectually believe to be true.

**Mary:** So there's really a beautiful truth about your true nature and identity. What is that?

Well the reality is that I have been the first person on the planet to discover this Divine Truth. I'm not the only person to discover it. There have been many people since, to whom I have taught the Divine Truth. Many millions of people in the spirit world believe the Divine Truth that I've taught and as a result of that they have personally discovered it as well. Therefore they personally have the same kind of relationship with God that I have.

That is the gift that God gave through our soul. The gift is that God gave us to the world to lead anybody who wants to be led into this condition of Truth and therefore to understand Divine Truth in their future and therefore to benefit from understanding this Divine Truth. That's the only thing that I have given as a gift to the world. By the way, there are many other people who have given many other types of gifts to the world. This one is mine. Only through being educated by God, I have discovered it and just as everybody else, I had to be told it by somebody. In my case I was humble enough and willing enough to be told it by God.

Now you don't have to believe me. You don't have to believe that I'm Jesus. You don't have to believe that I'm the messiah. You don't even have to believe anything I say, although my suggestion is that if you don't believe anything I say and you don't practice love, you'll soon find the consequence of that once you pass into the spirit world. If you are going to listen to what I say, listen to what I say first and practice love in your day-to-day life and learn how to change your heart into being loving. Learn to accept God's Love into your heart so that it transforms your soul into a loving creature. That's what I would suggest that people do, not to believe in my name.

Of course, if they believe that I am the messenger of Truth to God, they will find life much easier in their future than they can currently imagine. But that doesn't mean that I am special in any way. It just means that these words that I have taught have truth in them and anybody who listens to these words will have the benefit of the truth in their lives, which is always a benefit that's joyful and loving. Again, I feel that many of these statements that people make where they are worried about whether I'm going to be controlling and manipulative, or I want power or glory or all these other things, they are not the purpose of my coming and they are certainly not anything to do with my desires. So they are never going to happen. I suggest to them that while they want to believe in another Jesus that's going to do it, then perhaps such a person might come along acting like that at some point in the future, I don't know. He's not going to get very far because he'll be working against all of God's Laws to do it.

**Mary:** Out of anyone that I would know or hear of, you're the person that people least need to be afraid of being manipulative or taking power or controlling. And yet so many people ...

Exactly. And you know that even in our own personal relationship, I don't manipulate you in any way and in fact I constantly point out to you that you have your free will and you can decide what you want to do in any direction, even if that's leaving me or going away or whatever. So there's no manipulation in me, even in my private relationships, let alone any manipulation with people that I don't know as well as I know you.

**Mary:** It's just this terrible fear that seems to come up in people ...

Well, I understand them having that fear if they have this belief about Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible is a terribly manipulative and controlling person according to the Bible, but that's not my nature. I understand that many religious people from other religions might be afraid of that kind of Jesus. But it's certainly not the nature of the real Jesus. The real Jesus is far more loving than that. Even though he has not perfected himself again, in this life, through love, he's still far more loving than the person they're claiming me to be.

7. Matthew 24 Mark 13 Luke 21 All have not seen your return, you can't be Jesus

**Mary:** I'm confused as to how one could even suggest that Jesus has returned from 2,000 years ago and that I have only found out now through watching a TV show. How is this possible? The Bible says to watch for such people proclaiming that they are Jesus, for example in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Since the Bible, being of truth, states that everyone would see you, and not everyone has seen your return, your claims of being Jesus must be false. Is this not so?

Right, well this one was a bit more polite than many of the other ones I get from people of a Christian religious faith, and I feel quite inclined to answer it. The reality is that I am saying that I am Jesus. The reality is also that I didn't come in the manner the Bible describes, so that is obviously a conundrum for many Christians. They see my claims and often a false record of my claims on television. My suggestion to people is to actually listen to my claims from my mouth instead of from the mouth of television reporters, who often get it quite wrong.

But even so, I am claiming to be Jesus and the Bible does say that I will come in a certain way, and I haven't come in the way the Bible explains. So there is a decision that most Christians need to make, and that is, "Do I believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God on this matter or do I start analysing the person who says he's Jesus and see what he turns out to be? What do I do?" Now most Christians choose to believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God on the matter and therefore discount any claim that I might make. Now my suggestion is that that's a very illogical thing to do.

The reason why it's illogical is that the Bible isn't the infallible Word of God for a start. I've proven that through logic and if anybody listens to my logic about the Bible being the infallible Word of God, they can see that it's impossible for any book on this earth to contain God's word. It's impossible for something this thick to even define the human body, let alone God's universe. So it's physically impossible for a limited book to describe everything about God and be God's Word, and any person who believes that a physical book is God's Word really needs to look carefully at their own illogical reasoning ability because it's a very illogical belief.

That being said, the real question then becomes, "How do I determine whether this man who's claiming to be Jesus is actually Jesus?" And that is a very good question. That does need to be answered, I feel. According to the Bible itself, in John 1:4 it says, "The Word became flesh..." implying that I, Jesus, was the Word." ... and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." Now according to that, I, Jesus, am the living Word of God. If that is actually the case then anything I say would supersede the Bible anyway. That would mean that anything that's contained within the Bible when the Jesus of the people who believe the Bible comes, that Jesus would supersede anything that the Bible said anyway.

How would you determine whether that Jesus was actually the Jesus that you're waiting for? The only way to determine who is Jesus is by looking at the fruitage of the person who is Jesus, by really looking at what he's talking about, perhaps practising for a short or a long period of time, depending on what you want, what he's speaking of, trying to understand it, trying to grasp it, seeing whether it is always in harmony with Love and Truth. That is the only real way that you're going to determine who Jesus really is. Now until I get into the condition where I can do the works of my Father, in other words, where God can work his way through me by the condition that I've obtained, again through this growing in Love, until that point in time, there is going to be no evidence or proof, physically, that a person, miraculously - let's call it miraculous evidence - that I am Jesus.

The only way to tell is going to be by a person listening to what I've got to say and actually trying to put it into practice and to understand it and to determine through their own interactions with God as to who I am. That's the only way they're going to do it, at this point in time. In the future that may change. In the future, I do hope to become at-one with God. It's not a given certainty, just like it wasn't a given certainty in the first century. I aspired to do it in the first century, and I discovered the way, which I now know. I did it with a lot of help from God and a lot of spirits, to become at-one with God in the first century. And in this century I hope to have the same.

There is also a lot of opposition which I've had to endure in this century, to become at-one with God, and so it may be some time before I become at-one with God. I don't know when it will be. God hasn't told me when it will be and no spirit has told me when it will be and I don't believe they can know when it will be either. All I must do is continue to progress as I have defined and described, in the manner in which I have discovered, to determine and to prove whether it works or not. That's all I can do. I may not be successful, because it's the first time that this experiment has taken place, an experiment of an imperfect man attempting to become at-one with God while on earth. This is the first time this experiment has been done, in the sense that I've done it anyway, and so I may not be successful. I do not know. However, I hope to be, and once I am successful I also hope to then connect with God in such a way that God can work through me and then give people the evidence that they feel they need.

My suggestion though, is to not wait until that time, because it might be many years from now before I become at-one with God. My suggestion to people is, "Put into practice the things they are learning that I am teaching. There are hundreds and hundreds of hours of teachings that I've given. Analyse them; put them into practice and critically analyse them but don't judgementally analyse them, because if you judgementally analyse them you are already going against one of the laws of love." My suggestion is to critically analyse them with logic to see whether they are workable or not. If you don't believe they are workable then don't do it. If you believe they are workable then attempt to practice it and see what the outcome is.

But I can assure everyone that just because I'm saying I'm Jesus and just because the Bible says I would come in a different way, it doesn't automatically mean that I'm not Jesus and I'm a liar. This is not an automatic truth and it's illogical to believe such a thing. My suggestion to most people who believe these things is that all it proves, when a person says to me, "The Bible says this, and the Bible is all truthful, and you say that, and you're different to what the Bible says and so you must be a liar ..." Any person that says that to me proves nothing to me. All they prove - well maybe not nothing, they prove one thing. They prove that they are deeply committed to the Bible being God's Word and that they are totally unable to accept anything other than the Bible as being God's Word. That's all they prove. They prove that they are deep believers in the Bible being God's Word.

I am not a believer in the Bible being God's Word. I've had the personal benefit of having my life described in the Bible and what it describes of my life isn't my life, so I know it's not God's Word. If it was God's Word it would be an accurate reflection of what happened in my life and it's not. I know it's not, even though you might believe it is. I know it's not because I lived that life, so I have the added advantage to most people of seeing how the Bible isn't God's Word, in that my life is reflected in it and I know it to be false because it's not an accurate record of my life.

I've also, and you (Mary) have had the added benefit of talking too many of our brothers and sisters in the spirit world over two thousand years, of all of the other things that the Bible purports to be true. In all of the different books of the Bible, all the prophets of old and the writers of the Bible, Moses and Elijah and Solomon and all these other writers of the Bible, we've had the benefit of talking to them and we've been able to find out which bits they wrote, which bits they didn't, what bits are true about their life and so forth. And we can tell you that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of things, thousands of things in fact, in the Bible that are definitely not true, with regard to the record of their life either.

Now each person on earth might find that difficult to believe, but when you pass into the spirit world, you have the same benefits that I had, and that is, you have the benefits of calling to you every single person who you've ever read about in the Bible and asking them, "Did you actually say that? Did you actually do that?" And then when you actually make this investigation, you will find the reality is that they didn't say a lot of it and they didn't do a lot of it and they did many other things besides that are not mentioned in the Bible. And then you will realise, "Wow, what I believed to be the Bible, was just words of men, written by men who believed themselves to be in various conditions of love and faith and often weren't in the condition they thought they were, who wrote these words because they felt impelled to write them." And it was all collected into one mass by priests who wanted to control people, and who then embellished the word in order to make that control possible.

When you see the history of the Bible, you will not discount it as all bad but you will not accept it as the Word of God, once you understand these particular things that you can investigate. So what I suggest to every Christian who believes that the Bible is God's Word, if they cannot give up this belief now on earth, this is what I suggest to you. When you die and pass into the spirit world and find that everything is not as you imagined it to be, then ask the people who wrote these words to come to you and explain what they actually said. That's what I suggest to you. When you have these interactions with these people - and these people will be willing to have these interactions with you - then listen to them, and listen to the evidence and proof that they provide and once you do you will realise that this book, although it claims to be the full and complete and only Word of God, it is not.

And the Quran, just as it claims a very similar thing, is not, and all the other holy books on this planet are not. The only way for God to write a book on the earth is to write all of His Laws in your heart. You can become the living Word of God, just like I became the living Word of God in the first century, once you become at-one with God; that is your potential. Now my suggestion is, if you're not willing to do that before you pass, at least attempt to do that afterwards. But do it through investigation. Don't automatically accept everything it says because if you do, you will be severely disappointed in your future.

8. You being Jesus rejects statements in book of Revelation

**Mary:** Your teachings are quite confusing. In the scripture it says that there will be a second coming and Jesus will return to earth. During this time the sky will turn red. I know that this is metaphorically speaking, but honestly, you being Jesus rejects a lot of statements in the Book of Revelation, doesn't it?

Yes it does. It definitely rejects a lot of the statements in the Book of Revelation. The first thing mentioned, the verse that the person is referring to is in Acts 2 and it's a quote from the book of Joel, which says, "I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon to blood ..." It doesn't actually say the sun turning red. The sun's already red or yellowish red.

**Mary:** The sky, the sky. This person ...

Yeah the sky, it doesn't say that in this verse. "... before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Now this verse was being used by the apostle Peter, for a start. In context, Peter used it to explain what was happening in Peter's day, right at that time. He was saying, "Jesus, the messiah, has already come and gone. What we're doing now, which is sharing the truth to you in your own language, performing these signs of the Holy Spirit, this is proof that he's come and gone." And this was foretold by the prophet Joel.

So in context, what he was saying, he was quoting these verses not related to some time now in a modern age, but rather about his day, 2,000 years ago. That's the context of the verse being used. Pulling it out of that context and applying it to another context is, again, like a person making some fairly great leaps in terms of the interpretation of their Bible. The context is, Peter was applying it to what he was doing in his day, demonstrating through the gifts of the spirit, as he called them, the truth of the prophesy of Joel. That's the main purpose, proof that I had come to the earth already. That's what he was using it for, proof that I had already come.

That's the underlying purpose of the verse and again I find a lot of Christians want to make these great leaps of these verses into the modern era, mostly because they have been taught by their own ministers that there is this connection between the first century time period and the modern era, and so they feel that many verses in the Bible can be applied over and over again to different time periods. If that's the case, and sometimes it is the case, then it means that it's very open to interpretation. Which it is. The problem is that the person in this question is basically saying that because I haven't come in the way the Bible describes, then I can't be Jesus.

**Mary:** Yes, and they're also saying it's a metaphorical statement about the sky turning red or the moon turning red. Which is an interpretation as well, isn't it?

Which is an interpretation in itself. Yes. I agree that it is a metaphorical statement, but that is an interpretation and therefore a supposition. Like, the Bible doesn't say, "Oh with regard to this verse you need to interpret it as a metaphorical verse." The Bible doesn't give instructions as to its interpretation. There's nowhere in the Bible that says, "Interpret this as metaphorical, interpret this as literal, interpret this as something else, or something to do with your future spirit life"; it doesn't give these kinds of instructions. I understand why it doesn't because it would mean it would be three times as thick if it gave such instructions. Unfortunately this is why there are so many Christian denominations, because generally every Christian denomination interprets every one of these verses differently.

As a result of that they then come up with their own suppositions. Then of course they condemn me for saying that I'm Jesus because I don't match their supposition. I don't even match their supposition of what Jesus would do. Mind you, the Jesus of the Bible is a lot crueller and a lot more difficult a person than I am currently, but I don't match him of course. Therefore they say, "Oh he can't be Jesus."

Mind you, there are a lot of verses in the Bible that portray my character accurately and exactly the same as my character is now, but they don't use those and say, "Well, maybe he is Jesus," because they want to believe that I will come in a certain specific way. Now my suggestion to people who want to believe that the Bible is God's Word: It is your right to believe that the Bible is God's Word, and to believe that you shouldn't listen to anything else. That is your right because you have been given free will. You are able to make that choice and decision. I would like to share with you what I have observed over 2,000 years of people making this decision. I have observed huge amounts of trauma for people who make this decision, to believe that all of the Bible is God's Word. I have observed trauma in their day-to-day life on earth, before they pass, because they do not understand the truth of God's universe and how it works and how it impacts upon their own life. They do not understand how their choices and decisions have affected their soul condition as a result of believing some of the words of the Bible.

"As a result of that, when they pass into the spirit world, they have passed with a lot of trauma and a lot of difficulty in coming to understand the truth about the universe and about God. In fact, many Christians who have passed forget God altogether after they pass, because they are so disillusioned about what the Bible taught them. The Bible taught them untruth that they assumed to be true and when they found out that it was not true, they then discarded not only the Bible, but any concept of God or any concept of love. I've seen many Christians live in many years of torment in the spirit world as a result of them throwing away the baby with the bathwater, as the saying goes, the truth that's contained within, with the false things that are contained within.

In addition, I've seen many people in the spirit world who are Christian. Because of their false beliefs about the devil, their false beliefs about hell, their false beliefs that they can't get out of a condition once they've gotten into a certain condition, their false beliefs about my sacrifice, their false beliefs about what saves them, these have all impacted their life in the spirit world for many long years. You (Mary) have observed it as well I know, darling. As a result of these observations, we can tell you categorically that if you choose to accept the Bible as God's Word without any critical analysis, you are not only going to be severely disappointed in your future life but you are also going to have a lot of difficulties in your future life unravelling the untruth that you've imbibed in your life, as a result of believing that it's God's Word.

My suggestion is to do something completely different. My suggestion is to start with a clean slate with your belief systems for a change and analyse everything from logic, from truth and from love, particularly from logic and love. You don't know what the truth is yet. Assume you don't know what the truth is yet rather than believing that what the Bible says is true, and then look at it logically and look at it from a perspective of love. Now if there are things in the Bible that portray things that are unloving about God, get rid of them. They are not a part of God's nature. They are not even a part of your future, if you don't want them to be. If there's anything that's out of harmony with logic in a normal logical situation, discount it, or at least temporarily discount it, assuming that you have not enough logic yet to determine what the truth is rather than just accepting it by faith, as you call it.

Faith is established not through a lack of logic or mystery. Faith is established through something actually happening. This is very important to understand, I believe, for every single person on the planet. Faith can only be established from what you know and what you know can only be established through personal experience. It can't be established through anyone else's experience. It can only be established through what actually happened. For example, I know, and I have complete faith, that if I jump into the air then I'm going to return to the ground. Now why do I know this? Because every single person that I know around me and my own life demonstrates to me that every time I've jumped into the air I've come back to the ground. Now there is the potential that if there was no gravity, if I jumped into the air I'd fly out into space, but of course that doesn't happen because of this Law of Gravity that always pulls me back to the ground. This causes me to have faith that the next time I jump I'm not going to fly into space, so I don't walk around all afraid that at some point I'm going to jump and fly into space, because I know for certain that that can never happen.

It's very much the same with your own faith. You can only know something for certain after you've had a personal experience of it. For many people who are on earth, most people in fact, the majority have never experienced the spirit world. You do not know what's going to happen in it because you've never experienced it. You cannot know until you've been there. You could listen to some people who have been there but the Bible precludes you from listening to those people. The Bible says that you shouldn't speak to a medium who's speaking to a spirit, so it actually stops you from listening to such people, and that severely limits your ability to determine truth. My suggestion, instead of that, is to listen to the people who have actually done something and then if you don't believe it, see how you go; put it in the "I don't know" basket, rather than putting it in the "It's definitely not true" basket.

In my life I have three baskets. I have an "I don't know" basket, an "I know for certain" basket, and an "It's definitely not true" basket. Everything goes in the "I don't know" basket until for me it enters the "I know for certain" basket or "I don't know for certain" basket. My suggestion to every single person who's listening to these FAQ's is to go, "Alright, instead of me thinking that this is God's Word, without knowing, because I don't know, I have no proof, no evidence whatsoever, aside from what it tells me and even that's flawed, so I have no knowledge whatsoever of whether it's true or not, instead of doing that, let's put all of that in the 'I don't know' basket, and then analyse things, firstly through this critical analysis of logic and love." If it's loving, then put it in the "Probably true" basket. If it's unloving put it in the "Probably false" basket. If it's illogical put it in the "Probably false" basket. If it's logical, put it in the "Probably true" basket.

In the end you will end up with a series of teachings which will be very very close to what my teachings already are, if you want to go through that long-winded process of determining truth. Or you could just listen to a person such as myself who has been to the spirit world and who has had a connection with God and who does know what he's talking about and in fact, who was the very founder of your faith. You could listen to him if you so choose. But if you're frightened to do that then do this other thing. Put it in the "I don't know" basket and determine what is true and what is false through logic and through your reason and through your love.

**Mary:** And what about through lived experience?

Of course.

**Mary:** You're talking about the probable's, and once we have an experience of these things, is that when they reach the certainty baskets?

Yeah, it's impossible for us. If I can give an illustration of that: Let's say I said theoretically, I could walk through that wall. Theoretically, because my body is made of atoms and the wall's made of atoms and somehow if I could get my atoms in synchronicity with the wall's atoms, there's a potential that I could walk through the matter of the wall. There's the potential. If I've never done it, I don't know for certain. It's when I do it that I'll say, "That's in the 'True' basket." When I do it, that's when it's true. When you do it, that's when it's true for you. If it hasn't happened for you then it's not true yet. And don't assume that just because certain things have happened ... it's because of your assumptions, because there may be other explanations. Look at all of the possible explanations. A wise person will look at all of the possible explanations as to why they had a certain experience.

Many people who are Christian have had an experience of receiving Divine Love. Don't assume that it's because of your belief systems because I know Christians with completely opposite belief systems to yours that have had the same experience. I know people who are not even Christian who have had the same experience, so you can't assume that it's based on your beliefs. It's got to be based on something else. If you look at what was happening at the time, most of the time there was a longing in the soul, there was this desire in the soul to connect to God, connect to truth, and it's this passionate desire in the soul that God's responding to, and God responds to it no matter what religion we are. No matter what faith or lack of faith we have, God responds to this desire.

We need to have an open mind about these matters before we determine what is truth. Now a lot of Christians believe that the reason why they have had these experiences is that they believe that the Bible is God's Word. That's not the reason why. That's the assumption about the reason why which is very different from a logical perspective than the actual reason. The actual reason is completely different because people who are not believers in the Bible have had the same experiences, which tells me that there must be something else going on other than just a belief in the Bible. These are the kinds of things that need to be considered by the Christian who's sincerely analysing these particular matters.

We have seen the results of a person holding fast to a strict set of beliefs. Whether it's the Bible or the Quran or some kind of Hindu or Buddhist belief, there is a very similar set of things that is going on for them in the spirit world. We've seen the results of this. Our suggestion to you is to not do this, to understand that God's Word can be written on your heart. As long as you understand that God's Word is infinite and you'll be continually growing in the truth of it, and you can only do that by entering this relationship with God which is independent of any book. It's dependent upon the feelings that you have for God, the love you have for God and the love you have for your neighbour. That's what it's dependent upon, and the desire you have for God's Love to enter you. That's what it's dependent upon.

If you understand that basic truth you will be able to put the Bible in the "I don't know" basket until such time as the different things in the Bible, some of which will turn out to be true and others of which will turn out to be completely false, you will find in your future, if you do that. But if you go down the track of going, "The Bible is God's Word" you are going to be severely disappointed in your future and particularly in your spirit life future. You are going to be severely disappointed while you hold onto such beliefs. We have seen the pain that these things cause people and it is very unfortunate that it causes it because there is a lot of truth in the Bible but it is mixed with the error that people have included in the Bible because they wanted their own addictions to be met.

And the difficulty is determining what is true and what is not. If you follow the suggestions that I've just given, you'll be able to work out what is true and what is not, rather than just believing that it is God's Word completely. Any time you ask me a question, stating something in the Bible, my standard response is going to be that I don't believe the Bible. What other proof do you have? And if you can't give me any other proof then I'd suggest to you that perhaps it's not God's Word, because the proof will be in the universe. The universe is of God's creation. The proof will be there if it is God's Word.

**Mary:** So let's look at this from a Christian perspective. There are a lot of people on the earth who have been waiting for you to come back for a long time.

I agree.

**Mary:** And they do all look to this book that you have been holding up and talking about applying logic to and all of these things. Now wouldn't it just be easy to fulfil some of those prophesies so all of those people would have more faith or understanding that you are who you say you are?

The problem is that many of these prophecies I am forbidden to fulfil if I have a relationship with God that's in love. I cannot come and destroy the wicked for example. It's impossible for me to do such a thing and maintain my own connection with God. It's impossible for me to destroy the wicked; I can't do it. You're expecting me to do something that's impossible for me to do if you want me to fulfil what the Bible says. Also, there are many things that it says I should do in the Bible that are not impossible but are highly unlikely in the sense that I don't want to do them. I don't want to judge mankind. It's possible that I could judge mankind. I could sit down here and say, "Yeah you know, Igor who's behind that camera, he's a bit of a mongrel and he's a bit of this and he's that or let's be more polite about it, he's really evil because he did this and that in his life." I could do all of those kinds of things, but why do I need to do such a thing when God's Laws already provide any feedback and corrective system to Igor. I don't need to do such a thing. Why would I want to?

The Bible says that I will become a judge or that I am the judge. I don't accept such a thing. I don't want to be a judge and I'm not a judge and God's never offered me judgement because I know God's Laws as well as God does on the matter and they are that God's already set up a system that automatically corrects people without their needing to be a judge. There are many things that the Bible says I will do that are impossible for me to do if I love God and if I understand God's Love. It's impossible for me to remain at-one with God and do them, so I can't fulfil many of the things the Bible says I should fulfil.

**Mary:** And isn't there a parallel? Isn't there a parallel between the Jewish tradition believing in a set of books and waiting for a messiah to come?

Of course. Yeah, what an irony. Like, I find this so ironic, that here we have in the first century there were men and women who believed in the Jewish Bible of the time, let's call it, what they believed to be God's Word, the Torah and the Prophets and they were expecting the messiah to come and to be a king over the earth. Destroy the wicked, install a righteous government with no end and to have everyone on the earth subject to him. That's what they were expecting. Now how different is that to what the Christians are expecting at this point in time? Hardly any different at all, with the exception being, they believe this entire thing is God's Word in comparison to what the Hebrews believed, which is that that is God's Word, (pointing to the Old Testament of the Bible), that part of it. That's the only difference.

And with regard to their expectations of myself, they are identical. That's the irony. The irony is that the Jews had the expectation that I would be some all-conquering king, a warmonger who destroys the wicked and establishes a government. The Christians believe I'm going to be some all-conquering king who's a warmonger who gets rid of all the wicked and establishes a government. I never did such a thing when I came the first time so why do you expect me to do such a thing when I come the second time? Of course I can't. And I can't. It's not that I won't, it's that I can't. If I want to maintain a relationship with God of love, with love, and feel God's Love entering my soul all the time as I do, I cannot do such things. It's impossible for me to take such actions. So I feel that's the irony of these expectations. The expectations in the first century were based around unloving desires and the expectations now are based around the same unloving desires. Get rid of the unloving desires and analyse things from a more loving perspective and you'll see who the real Jesus is. There are many hundreds of thousands of people who claim to be Jesus, both on earth and in the spirit world. You'll see who the real one is by his actions, not through any other means.

I have to laugh when people say that my teachings are not logical. It just amuses me. Like, how illogical the teachings of the people who accuse me are, my teachings of being illogical, is just outstanding. All of my teachings are so logical that generally a child can understand them. We've spoken to children who are five, six years of age and they understand them perfectly, better in fact than most of their parents do in the majority of cases. And so I feel that they are very logical teachings, very straightforward teachings, very easy to understand. The reality is, it's the false teachings the person has already imbibed that prevent them from seeing the simplicity and logic in the teachings that we are presenting. And it's the false teachings that you have to unlearn that cause you so many difficulties with your future life.

You had something to add to the question too.

**Mary:** Oh, it's more of an aside because I'm not familiar with this person's thinking, saying that the sky will turn red metaphorically. What is that a metaphor for? Is that bloodshed or change?

Well they don't explain that and probably they don't personally know what the metaphor is for. It's sort of like the way they read it is that it's a metaphor. They will agree that it's a metaphor but many of the Christians feel that there has to be some kind of external sign that's really out there and right in your face to show you that Jesus has come. So the people that do not believe that these particular verses are literal believe them to be metaphorical, but in the metaphor they feel there has to some huge outward thing that happens to prove that this person who's claiming to be Jesus is actually Jesus. They are looking for some kind of miraculous, sun, moon, sky thing, which they view as a metaphor, so they don't actually expect it to happen in the sun, moon and sky. But they do sort of expect it to happen somehow in their day-to-day life without having any real strong definition of what that might be.

So I feel again, a lot of Christian theology is based around supposition and assumption, but also based around what people would want to see. It's sort of like feeding them excitement, keeping them excited for the day that Jesus returns without helping them to understand how to determine when Jesus has returned.

9. John 1:5, 6 If God is good & there is no Devil, who or what sustains the hells?

**Mary:** Regarding the "hells," I'm not finding it easy to think of the existence of them without an evil being. From the Bible in Genesis 1, where "God saw all that He had made, and it was very good," we know that God created the heavens and the earth and He saw that it was good. In 1st John 1:5-6 it says: "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth." From this we know that God is Love and would not create or exist in darkness. So I feel God would not have created hell, and according to you Satan could not have masterminded hell, since he supposedly doesn't exist. The people themselves would not be capable of doing it and/or would not be motivated to want to for obvious reasons. But they could not want to live there, because they would not want to live there. So who or what sustains the hells, or these hells? I get that the condition of the people cause them to be there but something has to be holding it together.

Right, well that's a fairly long-winded question.

**Mary:** It's an in-depth question, yes.

A few paragraphs, but I understand the background. The person basically feels that there's got to be a Satan or a Devil because there's no way for the hells to exist without there being one. That's basically the underlying concept. They're basing this concept upon the Bible being God's Word again of course. Now there are probably quite a lot of points that I would like to make about the subject that this person has raised. If we look at all the things the person has raised there are quite a lot of issues and assumptions that they've made all the way through their question that I cannot agree with. This is the problem with many questions; the question itself often contains so much error that the presumption of the final question would never be arrived at if there was a knowledge of the truth in the other parts of the question.

**Mary:** So perhaps we should start at the beginning of the question and just ...

We need to start at the beginning and work our way through. Now, they make a statement through this question. They say somewhere, from the Bible, "We know the truth that..." and off they go. Now the first thing I'd like to say is, we cannot state that just because the Bible says something, we know. We only know through personal experience. It was the only way that I could teach the truth in the first century, bearing in mind that I didn't have a Bible to work from. The Torah never told me the things that I told people. The prophets never told me the things that I told people. So how did I know? I knew by developing a relationship with God and going through this personal experience with God so much so that God could write the word of truth on my heart and I experienced this truth. Then I knew. That is the only way you know.

You are never going to know, no matter what a book tells you. Even if the book tells you the truth you're still not going to know until you've gone through the personal experience of knowing. So you cannot make a statement, "from the Bible we know." You don't know it from the Bible at all. Even if what the Bible says is true you still don't know it until it's been a personal experience of your own.

For most people, part of this question, the hells have never been a personal experience of their own. They've never been there. They've never visited there. They don't know what they look like. They don't know what they're like at all. So how can they say they know anything? They've never personally experienced it. Now in the spirit world there are whole groups of spirits who have visited the hells. They know exactly what they're like. They know exactly what they feel like, they look like, how they smell, how they taste even. Everything. They know exactly everything about these hells but no person on earth who is in their first incarnation knows such a thing. That applies to everyone on earth aside from fourteen people that I know. Thirteen now.

The reality is that no person on earth can really state that they know from the Bible what the hells are going to be like. Until they personally have a look at them they are not going to be able to even imagine them. Now those of us that have visited those hells might be able to assist them to have some concept of what they would be like, but it's not until they go there that they'll actually know. It's not until it's their personal experience.

That's the first thing I'd like to say. The second thing that the person brings up is the Bible in Genesis 1, which says, "God saw all that He had made and it was very good." Now I agree with that Bible statement. Also in 1st John 1:5-6, "That God is light and there is no darkness at all in Him," I agree completely with that statement. The Bible itself disagrees with it, saying that God is a God of wrath at the same time, which to me would be darkness. But those two statements from the Bible I agree with completely. Therefore, while it was possible to create a perfect creature that falls due to its own choices, it is impossible for God to create a creature that could fall and never be redeemed.

**Mary:** Why?

Well for Satan, a creature that cannot be redeemed, to exist, God could not be perfect. God, in perfection, has created everything in perfection. This means that God has created a system where anything that falls can be redeemed. They cannot permanently fall and never be redeemed. Now most Christians have never considered this. They believe that God, somehow, even though perfect, can create a creature that would fall and then never be able to be redeemed, and this is a physical impossibility. If God is perfect, that cannot happen. If that can happen then God is not perfect, so there is some kind of misinterpretation and lack of logic here in the Christian faith. The reality is that God cannot create anything other than a perfect system. If the system is perfect and a creature falls from grace, as the saying goes, then that same creature has the ability to return from the fall. This is what I was pointing out with the illustration of the prodigal son that is recorded in the Bible. Every creature that God has ever created has the ability to return to grace, has the ability to return from a fall. That's how perfect God's system is. It enables every single person who has ever sinned, who has ever committed badness, who has ever done wrong, to return from wrong. That's how it's corrective in nature.

**Mary:** And so really in this point, you are pointing out why Satan cannot exist basically.

Exactly. Satan cannot exist because God has made everything perfect. Because God has made everything perfect, God cannot create a creature that through its own will can fall and never be redeemed. God can't create such a system, and if you think that God can then you believe in an imperfect God. Therefore he's not God. So the logic or the lack of logic, in such an assumption is very plain. For Satan to exist, God cannot exist. If God does exist then Satan cannot. And of course no spirit has ever seen a Satan and so they know that Satan does not exist.

**Mary:** So then if we get to this person: In essence this person is asking the question, really, "If God made everything good, what maintains the darkness?"

Of course, yeah, and there are a lot of answers that we can give about that. But let's look at this assumption too. There is this assumption in Christianity that humanity is a flawed creation.

**Mary:** Very much so, isn't it?

Now, that cannot be true if God is perfect. A perfect God cannot make a flawed creation. If we believe the scripture in Genesis 1, that God said everything was good and perfect, and in John1:5-6, that there is no darkness in God and there's only perfection in God, then we must also believe that humanity is not a flawed creation. We must assume that humanity is a creation that is exactly created as it was intended by God. The way I see humanity, is that humanity is the pinnacle of God's creation, the pinnacle of the expression of God's Love and completely able to have free feeling and thought and then act upon the free feeling and thought, even if the action is out of harmony with God's Laws and God's Love. God gave this gift to humanity so that we would not be robots and that we would actually be free-thinking sentient, I think they call them, beings, beings that are able to make their own choices, whether those choices be good or bad.

**Mary:** And yet, as you say ...

And that's not a flaw.

**Mary:** Well most Christians believe ...

... believe that it is a flaw.

**Mary:** ... that inherently we always make flawed choices.

No we don't.

**Mary:** "We have this choice and we always choose bad things," don't they?

No we don't though, do we? That's what they believe but the majority of the people on the planet through the course of a day can make many good choices. Not every choice is flawed. They do make flawed choices or bad choices too, but that is based around their own will, their own desire, their own passions. It's not based around any flaw that God created. God created this beautiful gift, which we call free will, which is like a knife. It has a very very good function, but only if we use it wisely. You know, if we use a knife unwisely we can cause a lot of damage to the human body and other things. It's the same kind of principle.

**Mary:** Really you're saying that the design, God's design in us, is not flawed in any way because we have the capacity to use our will perfectly.

Yes, we have the capacity to use our will perfectly in a good direction and also very badly, perfectly in a bad direction, but it's the use of the will that is the important thing. God designed it as a design feature in the human soul, not as a flaw of the human soul. So instead of coming at this question from the point of view, "Oh we're all flawed and you know we're all going to end up with some ... you know we've got to be careful because we're all flawed ..." and all those kinds of things, none of this is true. God designed the human soul as the pinnacle of God's creation. He gave the human soul the only gift that He never gave any of the other beings, and that is free will, the ability to make choices for itself, and the way the soul exercises these choices is completely dependent upon their own will. Like, they are allowed to exercise their choice in any direction.

But that doesn't mean that God created the possibility of anarchy in His universe. He gave your soul the ability to make a free will choice but He created a universe that is unable to enter anarchy. He created a structure in which your soul would live, and if your choice disagreed with the structure, you would feel the results of the disagreement, a feedback system, if you will, that you are out of harmony with the rest of the universe. You are allowed to be out of harmony with the rest of the universe because God gave you free will. It's not very wise of course. If you're out of harmony with the rest of the universe you are going to experience a lot of pain at some point in your future. But it's the thing that God designed you to have the capacity to do if you desired.

This is a gift; it's not a flaw. This underlying Christian concept that it is a flaw, you know, "Our heart is treacherous and who can know it?" "We're bad from the moment we are born until the moment we die and we've been bad from Adam and Eve onward," and all of these kinds of things, they are a misunderstanding of God's nature and also God's creation.

So there's this concept almost that God created ... so far we've gone through two concepts. The concept that God created a flawed being such as Satan who could become flawed and leave God and yet never redeem itself is in itself an imperfect concept. And then this concept that God would create humanity flawed when they began is also an imperfect concept and certainly out of harmony with the truth about God. So there are two suppositions already from this question that are out of harmony with truth and logic, right?

Let's continue to the fourth point. This gift of free will, the ability to make choices, is the key thing. It's a natural consequence of this gift that there are an infinite number of possibilities, of choices that we could make. Now that means that we have the ability to make so many fantastically, perfectly positive choices, while at the same time we have the ability to make, on the other hand, all these terrible, terrible negative choices. Usually the same ability isn't exercised in the same soul at the same time, because usually when a person is in a very good development of love, they'll mostly or always make positive choices and usually if the soul is not developed in love and has some misunderstandings, fears and other emotions about love, anger and rage and so forth, then the soul may make very many negative and evil choices. They usually don't make good and evil choices at the same time because of the condition of the soul. But we are free-willed people. We have the ability to make any choice we wish. This means of course, that we have abilities to make evil choices. God gave us this ability. It's not an imperfect flaw; it's a design feature in our soul.

**Mary:** Because inherent in the design, it is really teaching us about the difference, the consequences and the capacities of using our will in either direction.

Yeah, the consequences and the joys of using our will.

**Mary:** And we never lose the capacity to make good loving choices.

A different choice. A different choice.

**Mary:** And that's a perfect design isn't it?

Perfect design. God makes perfect things, as a person growing towards God begins to realise. So this concept of a limited God who created a limited being such as Satan or the Devil, and created another limited being, the human being, which then had all these flaws in its creation, while at the same time the God itself is perfect, is a flawed concept. It's also a concept that seems to prevail in much of Christianity, which is false, so we can't make these assumptions.

**Mary:** Okay, so moving on.

Now since God knew that there was a possibility of us making all these different choices, you would naturally assume that God knew there was a possibility that we would make a lot of bad ones and there was a possibility we might make some good ones.

Now God, in knowing this, then had to find a place where we could live if we had made bad choices and a place where we would live if we made good ones, and so God created another set of laws that create the location that mirrors the choice that we've made.

**Mary:** Or the cumulative effect of all the choices we've made.

It's not only the cumulative effect of all the choices we've made; it is also the individual choices we make that create different locations. In the end we've had a life of choices, some good, some bad, some good, some evil, let's call it. When we pass into the spirit world, we have created a location that mirrors the choices we've made. If through the choice of my life, I have chosen through my life to exercise my will in a negative direction, I've chosen to murder a few people, go to war a few times, rape a few women and done a lot of other things like that, then by the time I pass, the location that I pass into will mirror the choices I've made. It will be a complete reflection to me of the choices that I've actually made.

Now that place isn't going to be a very pleasant place. It's probably going to be populated with other people who have made exactly the same choices. It's going to be populated with things around me that remind me of the choices that I made in order to correct those choices. That is a perfect system. We create through our choice our own hell, which is a physical location and an emotional condition at the same time. We create through our choices, and it's not right to say that we would have chosen something different, because many people knowing good, still choose bad, so it's not right to say that they would have chosen a different location.

Now perhaps if they were aware that they were creating a location in which they would eventually live, they might have made a different choice. But most people, because of the lack of awareness on the planet, are not aware. And because they don't want to hear from the spirit world... there are plenty of people in the spirit world who want to tell you, as I said in the illustration of the rich man and Lazarus that's recorded in the Bible. You know, the rich man wanted someone like Lazarus to go back and tell his family, "Look, if you keep doing these things you'll end up where I am." And there are plenty of spirits in the spirit world who want to tell you that. "If you keep doing these things then you'll end up where I am." But most people on earth have their hearing turned off to the spirit world; in fact the spirit world hearing is condemned by most religious faiths, and as a result they can't hear these spirits saying, "But but but, don't do this, don't do this. If you keep doing this you'll end up where I am and where I am is not nice, trust me." That's what they want to say but they can't say it because they are not allowed, because the people on earth don't want to believe it and because the people on earth don't want to listen.

So it's very important for us to understand that God did not need to create the physical locations.

**Mary:** It's really the result of our choices interacting with the laws that God has already put in place.

Exactly. All God needed to do was create the framework for the location to exist and our choice will determine what location is created. It's a very powerful thing God has done, a very beautiful thing in fact. God has created it so that every place we finish up living is the ideal place for a person in our condition to live. The hells are the ideal, the most loving location to place a person who has killed or raped or murdered or done anything like that. Any addiction we have, our addiction will be met in the location we've created. That is the most loving thing for God to do until such a time as we're prepared ... And when I say our addiction will be met, I mean the things that we've created will be reflected back to us in the creation through the location we've created through our choice and decision. So these laws are like the framework of the creations that we make. We're making a heap of creations every single moment.

Now, how can we then say that the hells need a Satan to exist? They don't. All they need is for me to exercise my will in an evil manner. That's how they exist. There's no other way for them to exist.

**Mary:** Yeah, and the person was asking, what sustains them?" What sustains them is my will, isn't it?

Is my will, my need for that place to exist because I created it through my will and my exercise of my will in an evil direction. That place now needs to exist while I need to live there. If I no longer needed to live there, that place would no longer need to exist.

**Mary:** And this is the possibility isn't it? As we were talking about the design feature, we can always choose to change our will and therefore leave the hell that we have created.

Exactly. These laws that God has made have created an infinite number of possibilities of existence, ranging from the most evil, which we could call the depths of the darkest hell, right the way through to the most bright, which is at the moment in the 36th dimension with the soul union state at this point. It could be infinite progression in that direction. It might also be infinite progression in the negative direction, theoretically, although in practice what happens is that the pain of such suffering gets so intense that a person doesn't want to go further, and so eventually they stop and they feel satisfied with the hell they've created.

**Mary:** And this is where I feel that God's nature shines through doesn't it? And the way that She's created our universe in that it's all there, designed to draw us closer to love and loving choices. Even in giving us this free will, there are all these feedback mechanisms which actually prevent us going infinitely in the direction of darkness.

Exactly. It's very unlikely that anybody would ever go infinitely in the direction of darkness, but I do feel quite strongly that there is the possibility of infinite progression in the direction of light, in the direction of love. That's the beautiful thing God has done, a corrective system created by our own soul through the structure of the universal laws that God has made and the beautiful gift of free will that God has given us to see and measure through our own feedback system where we are.

And the system isn't based on our intellectual development. It's based completely on our passionate desires, whether they are exercised in harmony or out of harmony with love. And that's all that maintains the hells. The hells don't need to exist at all. If nobody ever exercised their will in the direction out of harmony with love, the hells would not exist. But God had to create the potentiality of their existence, otherwise if we chose to do a negative thing, where would we live?

So the potentiality of their existence had to be created through the law, and the possibility of their existence and the actuality of their existence is created through our own action, our own will exercised in a certain direction. It's important that we understand this infinite number of possibilities and the effect that it actually has on the human soul and therefore the human soul choices and then the infinite number of possibilities in terms of where we have to live as a result of those infinite possibilities of choices.

The person in the question says that the people themselves would not be capable of doing it, referring to the creation of the hells, or would not be motivated to want to do it for obvious reasons. I cannot agree with that statement at all. I see people today completely motivated on destruction, completely motivated on doing evil acts. God, by giving us free will, made our soul extremely powerful, made us capable of creating heavens and hells. A lot of people are completely wanting to create hells. They do. They love living in the hells and they want to create the hells. There are people on this planet, and there are many millions and sometimes billions of them, who want to create hellish conditions in which to live. They want a lack of morality. They want to be able to have the freedom to do any destructive thing they want to do.

His statement here, I feel, is like saying to a person who is drunk or is drinking, saying to them, "Oh, you wouldn't want to drink because look at all the negative things it creates." How many people want to drink even knowing the negative things it creates in their own life? How many people drink and they see their life disintegrating around them? They see their relationships disintegrating. They see their relationship with their children, their parents, their loved ones all disintegrating. They see their monetary issues going down the gurgler, economically. They see their whole life being destroyed. They see how their life is being wrecked and yet they still have another drink. So I cannot agree that people wouldn't want to create such places for themselves.

I feel that this question is driven by a lack of understanding of people's desire for badness, which is all driven through fear and rage and rebellion, and the reasons for fear and rage and rebellion are generally all about suppressed emotional conditions from childhood. I feel that the person in this question doesn't really understand the psyche of man, the psyche of humankind, in terms of what motivates our choices. Many people have a huge motivation to create evil things in their lives, and mostly it's rage and fear that determines these creations. But they have such a strong motivation that the only thing they can create is these things in their life.

Look at a person who is like Stalin and the people who supported him and Hitler and the people who supported him. Their primary motivations were towards destroying things in their life. You can see that it must be driven by some pretty dark underlying emotions that they are in denial of to cause that particular thing to occur. Those kinds of people have to create a hell in which to live, otherwise they'd have nowhere to live.

In summary, I feel like God created this perfect framework in which all the possibilities of what our choices, based on our free will, could be made. We can make hundreds of millions of different possibilities and He gave this option to all humankind. The billions and billions of souls he created all had ability to make completely different choices. That means that there are billions and billions of possibilities of locations in which a person can live. And God had to create a framework in which all of this could exist. Very clever, very clever if you think about it.

**Mary:** Very clever, and you've just been talking about the hellish conditions that are created. But the converse is true. For every good decision, there's a corresponding place as well, and as we grow in love the potentialities expand for that also, as we refine our love.

Exactly. It's an incredible thing that God has created this beautiful ability to even develop your soul into a demonic state or to develop your soul into an angelic state and for it to be totally under your control, totally under the desire of your own will. That is an amazing gift that God has given us, this ability to make ourselves into anything we wish based on our will. I feel that once people understand this particular ability and the complexity of the framework of the laws that must exist in order for this ability to exist, then they will start understanding how powerful and great God is and how beautiful the system is.

**Mary:** And would you say also, really about the power of God's creation in us, in that, as a soul, we are so geared towards creation? This person was saying that we couldn't support the hells, but that's actually underestimating the power of the soul. That's how much power we have in our soul to create.

We have the power to choose a heap of evil acts which finish up creating a location that is so destructive and terrible that even we ourselves can't live there and be happy.

**Mary:** Our external creation almost impels us to change.

Exactly. It reflects back to us the need for our change. That's how much power we have. We also have the power to do the opposite of that, to create such angelic locations that we can't imagine the beauty of them. We also have that power. God has given us this power in either direction and this is the beautiful thing that God has done.

**Mary:** Just a beautiful gift that God has given us to sustain creation just through the use of our will.

Yes, yeah. If you consider that then you can see that there is no need for a devil to even exist, because we sustain the location of existence through our desire to live in such a location. Our desire to be evil creates a location in which we can be evil. Our desire to be a good will create a location in which our desire to be good is met. It just depends on our desire. This is the beauty of our free will choices.

Now God has made it so that if you desire to be evil, you've got a very small location, so that that location cannot largely impact upon every single other being in the universe. And God's made it so that if you desire to be good, you have very large locations in which you can exist. God has made it this way so that if you desire to be good you can have a great impact on the rest of the world and the rest of existence, in all the other people who exist, because you are acting in harmony with the principles of love that exist that create the framework of the universe.

Under such a framework, what need is there for a devil? There is no need for a devil. It's a perfect system. It doesn't need some kind of flawed being who can't repent and who can't change and who can't be redeemed. In fact, no such person can exist in this universe. The Devil cannot exist in a perfect universe that God has created. Now if I can conceive this perfect universe then I'm very very sure God can create it. So even my imagination conceiving it means that it's a probable part of creation, and I'm saying that it's also a certainty. I have observed this universe that I imagined at some point in my past did exist. I have now observed in it complete operation. I can see its existence in complete operation, from the depth of the hells right the way through to what I have observed to be the pinnacle of mankind's current existence, which I feel will improve even further after a time. It's impossible for Satan or the Devil to exist in such a perfect system.

**Mary:** Because Satan himself would just be someone who had been making evil choices with his will and he could change that at any time and he would be ...

Exactly. Not only that, God has created this system which is redemptive. In other words, the entire system has been created to redeem a person who makes a bad choice. Now let's assume Satan is the worst of all people who have made all the bad choices that have ever been made. He is still living in a universe that wants to redeem him.

**Mary:** And geared to do.

And geared to redemption. So it's impossible for Satan to actually exist permanently. Now there are many devils. There are many people who are worse than the average conception on the planet of what Satan would be because of their exercise of their will. But they are all able to be redeemed. There is no permanent, fixed place for any of them and there is no need for a Satan to maintain the evil, and in fact the evil is just because of the choice of man. It's a choice driven by fear underlying the choice. It's the fear that generates the choice of rage and anger and rebellion and other emotions that causes the evil to exist.

I feel that the question has many other things that we need to raise with it too. There are another few other points that I feel we need to ponder. When the last living person in the lowest condition of the soul is redeemed into a new condition - they only need to be redeemed from this part here, which is the lowest hell into this new condition here - then there is no need for that condition to ever exist.

**Mary:** Well in fact, doesn't it just simply cease to exist?

It simply ceases to exist because it's no longer maintained by any soul that created it. This is the beautiful thing too and this is foretold in the Bible, that the hells will be rolled up like a book scroll. The reason why this will occur is that as soon as these people that are currently in the hells get into a condition where they have been redeemed into a new condition of love, there is no longer any need for this hell to exist because there's no one who needs to live there. Once there's no one who needs to live there it no longer needs to exist. It can disappear. There is not the soul maintaining its location any more. This is how powerful our soul is. Our soul creates the locations and is able to destroy them depending upon what choices we make. I'm talking now about destroying the locations in the hells. The hells, the hellish locations will eventually all be destroyed.

**Mary:** Not through any act of destruction but just through the act of choosing to move our will in the direction of love.

Once the very last person moves their will ...

**Mary:** They will almost disintegrate won't they?

That's right. Once the very last person moves their will into the new condition, the hell will no longer exist, because it no longer needs to exist.

**Mary:** Such an exciting prospect.

Yes, and that's one of the reasons why we've come, to try and assist this process to happen a bit more rapidly than it's been happening in the past. The damage of the Bible teachings and holding on to the Christian teachings in themselves about the hells is that they tell the people that are in the hells that they can never get out of them. Now if you consider this, it's a very damaging teaching, because you are telling a person they've created the hell, they are now living in the hell they've created, which is all true, but then you're telling them that they can't redeem themselves, that God hasn't made a perfect system that they could redeem themselves out of this condition. You're telling them that they can get into the condition but they can't get out of it. Now that is a very very damaging teaching to tell somebody, because you then make them think, "Oh well, if I can't get out of it, there's no point in trying." And in some cases it can make the person do even worse things because they feel that their life is hopeless.

**Mary:** They think, "Here I am, I'm stuck with this, I'm just going to do whatever I can to try and avoid this pain that I'm in." Which is usually a fearful action isn't it? That usually means they take more and more damaging actions towards themselves and other people.

Exactly.

**Mary:** Whereas if they knew the truth they could say "Okay, here I am. This is telling me my will ..."

"This is where I am, I'm in the hells but I can get out. If I exercise my will in a different direction I can get out. "Now you imagine the power of somebody being told that rather than being told "Once you're there you're there for good." A person who's told "You're there for good," usually goes into further rebellion and that causes their condition to get even darker and create another even darker and deeper hell even. Often these Christian teachings have created even darker hells through the teaching. If we teach them instead that any person who gets to any location in the spirit world can get out of that location through the exercise of their will in a loving direction, now every single person has the potential of getting out of their condition. And that's a beautiful, loving creation.

There are many other reasons why Satan can't logically exist. As I've explained through this answer there are quite a lot of logical reasons we've already presented as to why Satan cannot exist, why the hells do not need Satan to exist, why a loving God would create a potentiality of the hells existing, and so forth. I feel that we've answered fairly comprehensively the person's question about the possibilities of the hells' existence and also given in the answer the possibility of the hells not being a future requirement, depending on how mankind generally exercises their will. So this is a beautiful ...

**Mary:** ... hope for the future isn't it?

Exactly. The hells only need to exist while the human chooses unloving actions. The hells no longer need to exist when the humans stop choosing unloving actions. The humans maintain the hell and there's no need for any other creature to maintain them. And there is in fact no other creature that does maintain the hells.

10. 1 John 1:5 How can God love me if Jesus wasn't sent to atone our sins?

**Mary:** This question is from a Christian lady. She says, "As a Christian, I believe that God desires fellowship with us, but that He cannot be present with anything dark or imperfect. She takes this belief from 1st John chapter 1:5.

Which says, "This is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you, God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all."

**Mary:** So in order to have fellowship with us He must have atonement for man's sin.

In other words, we're all dark, He's light, He can't 'fellowship' with us and He needs some kind of intermediary to ensure fellowship with us.

**Mary:** "We believe that He sent down Jesus to the sacrifice so that He would be able to abide with us eternally if we will accept the free gift he offers us.

Which is Jesus' blood sacrifice. The atonement, what they call the atonement sacrifice.

**Mary:** It's a free will choice. "Under this model God does not 'send people to hell' and He is not 'a punishing God.' People who have had near-death experiences have lived to tell of a God that weeps over the lost who end up going to hell, i.e. He feels sad about them going to hell but cannot interfere with anyone's free will."

Interesting concept of God, yes.

**Mary:** "So, if I take all of these beliefs away, how do I know that God loves me? I can't seem to take it any further than 'God desires me to have Divine Love and Truth' and that I can be at-one with Him some day. But what's God's reason for this?"

Yep, go on is there more to the question?

**Mary:** There is, and I feel that this person is very sincere.

Very sincere, I agree. So I'm not laughing at the person, I'm more laughing at the reasoning that's occurring within the person to come up with these ideas or concepts which we'll talk about as we go through.

**Mary:** That would be good. So back to the question. "What's God's reason for wanting us to have Divine Love and Divine Truth and becoming at-one with Him? It could be love, or it could be for the good of mankind and mankind's existence. Or it could be many other things. Please let me know what you feel I am missing." So could we understand the question well? Because for me there's a lot there.

Well what the lady is saying, I am assuming that it's a lady ...

**Mary:** It is a lady.

What the lady is saying is that firstly she believes that God cannot be present with anything that's imperfect and because mankind is imperfect, God cannot be present with us without there being some intermediary. And the intermediary that God created was Jesus, the sacrifice of atonement so that He could abide with us. In other words, God's reliant upon the blood of Jesus, so that it's not only we humans that are reliant on the blood of Jesus, but God's reliant upon the blood of Jesus in order to have a relationship with humans. And the sacrifice is believed to be a loving sacrifice. It's an expression, "God gave His only Son as a sacrifice" and that proves God's Love to us. It's like saying that you have to prove your love to me by sacrificing your daughter or something and then I'll know that you love me.

**Mary:** And so that's why in the second part of the question she asks, "How do I know that God loves me?"

If there's no sacrifice how do I know God loves me? Because if God hasn't sacrificed His only Son in order to prove that He loves me, how do I know God loves me? The question itself is almost saying that to prove that you love somebody you have to kill your own son.

**Mary:** Or at least have some kind of sacrifice.

Well no, it's saying specifically that you have to kill your own beloved son to prove how much you love the other person. Now that's not very fair for the son for a start, if you think about it logically. It's basically saying that if I had a son and you wanted proof that I loved you, the way I could prove that I loved you was by killing my son for you and then I could prove that I love you. Now that concept is a pretty flawed concept in terms of love. It's basically saying that you would expect me to kill my own son in order to prove that I love you. Why can't I just love you and my own son and not kill either of you? Why can't I do that? Because you won't accept it. So this is about mankind's inability to accept love that isn't based around sacrifice. Do you see?

**Mary:** Yes.

The question itself is flawed because it assumes that love needs sacrifice in order to be love, and that is a very very flawed concept of love. This is a flawed concept of love that most Christians believe, or many Christians believe, that proof of somebody loving you is for them to destroy something that they love to prove to you that they love you. Now I would ask, "Why do you need such terrible proof that somebody loves you?" Surely that's a very destructive thing to get proof of. Also, if you think about it, nobody in their right mind would get married and as a proof of their love for their marriage partner kill their only child. No one in their right mind would do that. But that's what Christians are suggesting God is doing, which is a pretty damaging concept about God. This is why I have to laugh, because there are so many damaging concepts about God in this underlying belief system.

**Mary:** So there's that belief, but then there's this idea of asking, "Okay, God desires me to have Divine Love and Truth but what's God's reason for this?"

And why couldn't it just be love?

**Mary:** Yeah, okay.

Can you see how for this kind of person, they don't believe love is possible without sacrifice? That's where they are coming from. They are basically stating that unless God sacrifices something that He finds precious, people on earth will not believe that God loves them. Now that is a very flawed concept about love if you think about it.

There are many parts to this question that I'd like to address. There are probably four or five parts to the question. That is one of the parts that I'll address, this flawed concept of what is required to demonstrate or prove love. It's a terrible requirement that Christians are placing upon God. They are basically wanting God to sacrifice His only Son as proof that God loves them and yet if they had their own son and somebody comes along and said, "Look, prove you love me. Kill your son", would they agree? They would probably tell them to go to hell.

**Mary:** Well, isn't there an account of God asking someone to do this in the Bible?

Of course. This is part of the problem. There is this account in the Bible of Abraham and Isaac, with Isaac being the sacrifice that God required. According to this story, God required Abraham to attempt to sacrifice Isaac in order to prove Abraham's obedience to God. Now I would suggest to you that any God that requires you to murder your own son is not a very loving God. This is where the concept of God's sacrificing for God came from in the Jewish faith. You have to see that it surely is a very unloving concept of God. It's a concept of an unloving God, is probably the better way to put it.

Who does not exist actually. This God does not exist. But many humans in the past, way before Abraham's time, believed in this kind of a God. They believed in this wrathful, angry God who demanded sacrifice and they used to sacrifice their firstborn children and usually virgin women to their gods in order to appease them. There are even accounts in the Padgett messages where you see these spirits who had these belief systems.

Now Abraham came from that same time period so he had a very similar belief system of God until it changed and he started to realise "No, God didn't want a sacrifice of my child." All he did then was sacrifice an animal instead. He still thought that God required blood, which doesn't make any sense either, because God created the blood in that animal so how would it ever appease God? It already belongs to God. Very few people consider that.

This whole concept of sacrifice being proof of love is a very damaging concept to a person's concept of God but also to a person's concept of love. It's suggesting that the only way to prove that you love somebody is by sacrificing something for them that you find precious, and this is a very flawed concept of love. It's very prevalent on the earth but a very flawed concept about love. There's a lot that we need to say about this so let's get started.

Firstly, the question in 1st John 1:5: it suggests of course that God cannot have anything to do with darkness. There is no darkness in God. Now just because there is no darkness in God, it doesn't mean that God can't have anything to do with darkness, in the sense that God can't interact with people in darkness. In the Bible there are other locations that talk about Satan, the Devil, who we've already discussed does not exist, being in God's company. Now that would suggest that God can interact with people who are in darkness. So it's not accurate to state that God cannot interact with people who are in darkness. Now this woman is suggesting that in order to 'fellowship' with us, He must have atonement for man's sin. However, in the Bible record in Job, God did not require atonement for Satan's sin and under the Christian definition, Satan's sin is the worst possible sin that anyone has ever committed and yet God could converse with Satan directly. Now if God can converse with Satan directly, surely God can converse directly with any other person who's a sinner. So it's totally illogical from the teachings of the Bible itself to believe that God cannot spend time with sinners.

Also if we examine it from another perspective and that is this: Most Christians believe that Jesus is God and yet in the Bible it says quite categorically that Jesus spent time with sinners. Now if Jesus was God and Jesus spent time with sinners, then it means God can spend time with sinners, and this happened before Jesus 'gave the sacrifice.' Therefore it didn't need Jesus' sacrifice in order for Jesus, God, to spend time with sinners. Again it makes no logical sense, this reasoning.

If we examine some of the Bible verses that talk about that: In Luke 7, it talks about the woman who was a sinner who washed Jesus' feet, so she touched Jesus. She touched God according to the Christians, and yet that was allowed. Jesus interacted with this woman with freedom, therefore proving that God could interact with people before Jesus 'atoned,' before the death of Jesus.

Now if God could do it before the death of Jesus and God did it after the death of Jesus, then what was the point of the death of Jesus? Well there was no point. The death of Jesus did not create what these people assume, which is the atonement of sin, because the reality is that before Jesus' death God could reside with badness, God could speak with people who were bad. That didn't mean God was bad, he could just speak with them. And God did speak with them according to the Bible and then Jesus when he was on earth before he died. He spoke with people who were bad, which means that there was no need for Jesus to sacrifice himself in order for God to be with people who were bad.

The presumption here, that she says in her question, "So in order to have fellowship with us, God must have atonement for man's sin," is incorrect. God does not need atonement for man's sin in order to 'fellowship' with sinners. Just because God 'fellowships' with sinners, it doesn't make God a sinner. There are verses in the Bible that state this, interestingly enough. Like, here's one, in Matthew 11 for example, in 18-19, "For John came neither eating nor drinking and they say 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'" So here it's saying, in the Bible itself, that Jesus was a friend of tax collectors and sinners. Now if Jesus was God, then God was a friend of tax collectors and sinners and God did not need Jesus' sacrifice in order to be a friend of tax collectors and sinners.

**Mary:** So basically you're showing that the Christian belief system is flawed. If they believe in the atonement and believe in the scripture, they actually contradict each other.

Exactly. They are totally contradictory to each other. By believing in one, you contradict the other. This is where I find many contradictions in the Christian belief systems. There are more contradictions in the Christian belief systems than there are in the Bible itself, because if a person actually believes what the Bible says, there would not be as many contradictions. But there are more contradictions in the Christian belief system than the Bible itself contains.

Now in John 14:6-7 it says, "Jesus answered, I am the Way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on you do know him and have seen him." What I was saying there, and I did say those words, is that because I was at-one with God, every action that I took was the kind of action that my Father would take. Everything that I did was the kind of thing that my Father would do. This is while I was alive. These things were what I would do and what my Father would do while I was alive. If I sat down and let my feet be washed by a sinner, I can certainly have association with darkness. It doesn't mean that I am dark; it means that I am interacting with a person who may be in a different condition. Now if we take that verse to be literal, and most Christians do, then that means that I showed what God was like. In showing what God was like, I was demonstrating that God could interact with sinners, just as I could interact with sinners, before my death.

**Mary:** And you're also saying that the Christian belief is that you were God and if you follow that doctrine, it's demonstrated that God can be with sinners.

Because my actions were ... I was with the sinners, yes.

**Mary:** But you and I know the truth that you weren't God; you were at-one with God so you mirrored His feelings and Beliefs and Desires.

So no matter which thing you believed about what my nature or character was ...

**Mary:** ... you still spent time with sinners.

Therefore God could spend time with sinners, so therefore God did not need any atonement sacrifice in order to spend time with sinners. I'm using the logic from the Bible here. Of course I feel that the Bible is flawed, but even using its own logic God could spend time with sinners before Jesus died. If God could do that before Jesus died and God could do that after Jesus died, what was the point of Jesus' death? None, nothing. Nothing whatsoever, and that is true. The truth is that I didn't die for any atonement reason. That is an underlying truth. So if I am truly God and I spent time with sinners on earth, then it's possible for a person who is in a condition of light to spend time in darkness without being affected by the darkness. And that is true. That is a very basic understanding and a very basic truth that we need to understand. We can be surrounded by darkness and still be light ourselves.

**Mary:** Is it inherent in this question the implication that God is our parent who is perfect but by implication in the statement it's saying that the parent, the perfect parent, can somehow be affected or restricted from communing with the imperfect child?

Exactly. It's a ludicrous proposition if you think about it. Like, it's basically saying that a person who is the most powerful person in the universe is restricted by His own Laws to interacting with a person who has decided to walk away from Him. And it's not true. How can it be true? Now the reverse could be true. The person who has walked away from God is now restricted from having a relationship with God, not through any choice of God's, but rather through the choice of the individual. Very different. Very different.

You see, it's almost like Christians want to blame God for the sacrifice, the atonement sacrifice. It's a very warped concept that is not based on any logical discussion whatsoever, but based upon a lot of very harmful beliefs about God. It's based on a lot of very harmful projections towards God. I'm not saying they harm God; they harm the individual because they believe God to be this person. When how could God ever be such a person? If you have almighty power of the universe, who are You restricted from talking to in this universe? The answer is "No one." No one, no matter what their choices and decisions. You can still commune with them. Whether they can commune with you is a different matter altogether based on their condition. But You would be able to commune with them.

God has unlimited and unrestricted power, even with God's Laws, and God can commune with any person whether they are a sinner or not a sinner. It doesn't matter. God can commune, spend time with us in any state if we are open to such communication, if we are open to a relationship. No matter what state we are in we can be open to such a relationship and God will engage the relationship.

Also in the Old Testament of the Bible it suggested that different people spent time with God. Now under the Christian belief structure that would not be possible. But in the Old Testament it suggested people did spend time with God. So which is it that's true? Again the logic is flawed. We need to understand the basic problem with this logic. This concept that God needs an atonement of sin in order to commune with people is a flawed concept based on very very old concepts about God of being a punishing wrathful God needing sacrifice, needing blood really, in order to communicate and to favour humankind. It's based around fear, huge amounts of fear in fact, this concept of God.

We would never consider that an individual who sacrifices his own child needed to do so in order to prove his love to us and yet we almost demand of God that He sacrifice Jesus, His own beloved child according to our belief systems, in order for us to have a relationship with God. And it's a very flawed concept. It's flawed on a number of levels ... why does Jesus deserve the sacrifice? Why did he deserve that treatment? He doesn't deserve that treatment. What about him? What about his feelings in the matter? Now a lot of people then say, "But he was a part of God," and all that. Well that's not true but even if he was a part of God it makes no sense at all. If he was a part of God then God already had it. Why does God need to do something that creates a lot of pain when God already had what he was wanting to do? Again it makes no sense whatsoever. So this flawed concept of the atonement sacrifice, the blood sacrifice, the vicarious sacrifice causing and allowing a relationship between God and mankind, it is so flawed on so many levels, logically and from a loving perspective that it's amazing, I believe, that people can even believe it.

interestingly enough in my own life, in this life, due to some history of my own, I did believe it for a period of time. And I go, "Wow, how flawed was my concept of love?" Once I gave up this concept of love, that love requires sacrifice, I could not accept it after that point. I could not accept it. And I suggest that most Christians will not be able to accept it once they have a different viewpoint of love. So that's the first point I would like to make.

If people could receive God's Love before Jesus died and people could receive God's Love after Jesus died then it demonstrates that Jesus' death had no change. Now the reality is that people could not receive God's Love before Jesus came, not before he died. Before I came to the earth people could not receive Divine Love because they didn't know how. They didn't know how to. In my discovery of how to, they could also be taught how to receive God's Love. That's the point of my life. The point of my life was to demonstrate to people how to receive God's Love. It was my life, not my death that was important to a Christian or any person in fact who wanted to have a relationship with God.

**Mary:** Say it again baby.

It was my life, not my death. It was by listening to the truths that I discovered through my life and my demonstrating that truth through my own example that allowed a Christian to then come to the knowledge that they too could have the same relationship with God. Not my death. My death created nothing except pain for you (Mary) and my child. Pain for a lot of my so-called disciples at the time. It created no other benefit except one. And that was that I could demonstrate to my disciples that there was no such thing as death by reappearing to them after I died. That's the only benefit that it gave. No other benefit was created through my death.

The second part of the question suggests that God needs the sacrifice in order to eternally abide with people on earth. So she's saying here, He would be able to abide with us eternally as long as the sacrifice of Jesus was applied. Now my suggestion to people is, God abides eternally under all conditions. Whether He is with us is completely dependent upon the exercise of our individual will for God to be with us, nothing else. It's not dependent upon a third party sacrifice. My sacrifice was of no benefit to anybody requiring a relationship with God. My discovery of the Divine Truth was of immense benefit to everybody who wanted a relationship with God. It was the discovery and application of Divine Truth and then my desire to share that with others through my personal example and my life that caused people to have the possibility of having a relationship with God. It had nothing to do with my death, nothing whatsoever. Any person who considers that it did is not being reflective about even the Bible record itself, because the Bible record shows that I, a human, had a relationship with God before I died. Now if I can have relationship with God before I died and I am a human, it means that you as a human also could have a relationship with God before I died. I was encouraging every single person I was teaching at the time to have a relationship with God before I died.

**Mary:** And many of us did have that relationship.

Many did. Yeah, many began that relationship with God before I died. I would never have encouraged that. I would have said otherwise, I would have said, "Wait till I die and then you can have a relationship with God." Now the Bible itself indicates that I never said to anybody, "Wait till I die and then you'll be able to have a relationship with God." I said, "Do what I do while I'm alive and you'll have a relationship with God," and that's very plain in the Bible. So the whole logic of the atonement sacrifice is all very flawed, and I do not understand why Christians hold on to it so dearly.

**Mary:** I feel it's very emotional for people.

It is very emotional.

**Mary:** This idea of "Someone giving up their life just for me," as this lady expresses in her question, is very emotional for people. They think, "Wow, what bigger gift could I be given?"

Well it's true. The reality is, if I decided through a choice of mine to give up my life so you could live, then that's a wonderful benefit. So emotionally I can see why people feel very open to the belief but God doesn't require such a thing in order for you to have a relationship with God.

In fact, my death under these circumstances can only occur at the hands of people who are very damaged themselves. But why would anyone want to kill you, let alone kill me in place of you? Like, it makes no sense for anybody who actually loves, to want to kill anybody. So my suggestion is that the whole concept of sacrificing comes from humanity's long history of death and terrible pain occurring throughout history and then people standing up and dying for the sake of others. It doesn't come from my own actions.

Now the reality is, I did stand up for truth and I died for my standing up for truth. I didn't die for the sake of any person. I died because I did not wish to compromise truth in my life. That's why I died. People want to believe that I died for them because they want to have that feeling, "Someone loves me so much that they died for me." That's the only reason why they want to believe it. But to attribute this death to God is ludicrous. In a lot of ways it's so ludicrous; it sort of can't be.

It's amazing really because in a way, it's almost stating that the people who killed me were necessary for God. You see, it's almost saying that God can't kill Himself. There's this assumption that Jesus is God, and God can't kill Himself because that would be suicide, and that's not on. So then someone has to kill him for the sacrifice to occur. So then Pilate, Herod and the Roman soldiers all become a part of the sacrifice occurring. Why aren't they all blessed instead of condemned? They should all be saints under this construct because they were all a necessary part of Jesus' death. Without them Jesus death couldn't have occurred, so they should all be accredited for the so-called atonement sacrifice as well, if you think about it.

**Mary:** Yeah, it wasn't possible without them.

It wasn't possible without them. So you know, obviously such a concept is ludicrous. Here's another reason why such a concept is flawed.

The third part of the question suggests that God grieves over the condition of humankind. The questioner states, "People who have had near-death experiences have lived to tell that God weeps over the lost people who end up going to hell. That is, He feels sad about them going to hell but cannot interfere with anyone's will."

This whole concept that God is sad is flawed. God is not sad. How could God be sad about a perfect universe that God created, operating in a perfect manner because of His perfect Laws? Such a concept that God would create His own sadness by creating a whole heap of flawed laws that then God would have to obey Himself, is crazy, let alone unreasonable. It's definitely not true. No one in the spirit world who has had a near-death experience and visited the spirit world has ever seen God cry. They have seen spirits who claim to be God crying. They have seen spirits who claim to be me crying. They have also seen spirits who want to show that God cries impersonating a crying God just so the person on earth feels like they are loved because they're cared for and they are going to cause God pain if they choose something that's out of harmony with God's Laws. You do not cause God any pain when you choose to do something out of harmony with God's Laws. None whatsoever. God smiles at your decision. God realises and has compassion for the fact that you create your own pain, but God does not cry at the decision you willingly make to disobey God's Laws and principles.

**Mary:** Is this another idea of love being shown through sadness and regrets?

Of course it is.

**Mary:** Obviously there's a lot of ... and I know that there are accounts in the Bible where you supposedly wept and people would see that as a sign of your love as well.

There was only one time that I remember weeping in the first century and that was when Lazarus was said to be dead and they had buried my friend alive. Now I was pretty sad about that because I was thinking, "Wow, they don't understand so much about death that they can go and bury my friend and he's alive." Can you imagine being bound from head to toe, wrapped up so you cannot move and you're alive and you're in that condition for over two days? Now the Bible account that he was smelling was not true; he was not smelling, but he was constrained in this place being alive, and in this place where he hadn't died yet. It's sort of like a place before the spirit body has left the material body. I knew my friend had been buried alive and my sadness was caused by the fact that people would go ahead and bury him alive because they didn't understand death at all. So naturally I let myself have a cry about that and went and remedied the situation. The accounts that he smelled and all those sorts of things were not true. They were later embellishments to prove that I somehow resurrected the dead, which I did not do because it's impossible.

But again, they are things that people feel, you know, a weeping God appeals to their emotional state. God doesn't weep. God's a happy God. If God wept, I don't know what the results would be in the universe, but they'd be pretty incredibly intense, I would have thought. If God wept over sinners, then due to the number of sinners that are on the planet and in the spirit world, God would be weeping a lot, because there are billions of sinners and billions of people on earth and in the spirit world who are directly doing things in disharmony with God's Laws and love. If God was a sad God, imagine how much crying He'd be doing. It's like you having a billion friends and you have to cry about each one of them, or twenty billion friends and have to cry about each one of them. Imagine the immensity of the grief. God is not like this at all.

**Mary:** Well, and as we've discussed in other questions, God's actually designed inherent in His Laws, ways that we're going to come back to love and understand our will anyway, aren't we? So what would be His cause for sadness? Nothing is permanent.

There is no cause for sadness because God created a perfect system. You are not sad about a perfect system that you create, and God is never sad about the beautiful system God created. God looks at it in good marvel and thinks, "Wow, aren't I a fantastic creator." God looks at it, and my feelings are that God looks at it and goes, "Wow, this is a beautiful system that I've made and I would love the people in this system to come to understand how beautiful it is." Which the people who develop in love do eventually come to see, how beautiful the system is. It's a remarkable system that God's created and God would never need to cry about anything that's happening in the system. And God doesn't cry about anything that's happening in the system.

Once you become at-one with God you don't cry about anything that's happening in the system either. That's the reality. You may have compassion and express compassion through tears. And you may have joy and cry in your joy but you don't cry in sadness. You might still even have some frustration, once you're at one with God, in the sense of seeing how everybody acts and behaves. When I say frustration, it's not anger or anything. It's just frustration in the sense of, "Wow, if only everyone could see it differently. Then everything would be different."

But you know the reality is, there is no pain in God. Pain is a human creation based upon our fear and our walking away from God. If we believe that there is pain in God, we have a very incorrect concept of God. God is not pained by anything that we do but God wishes and hopes and has compassion for our condition and hopes and wishes that we change, hopes and wishes that we get into a better condition. But also God has created this beautiful universe where we have got no future other than getting into a better condition.

**Mary:** Thank goodness.

Thank goodness for that. This concept that God is a sad God, is a very damaging concept as well. Now the question also said that if we take away all these beliefs because they are illogical and unnecessary, as we've discussed, and contradictory, then we are left with the primary question and that is, "How do we know that God loves us?" Basically it's a statement that says it's impossible to know if God loves us unless God sacrifices for us.

**Mary:** That's the questioner's belief system.

Yeah, that's the questioner's belief system. But how do you know someone loves you in an interaction? How do you know? Well they give love to you and you feel it. That's how you know. There's no other way of knowing. You receive it and then you receive the expressions of love that they give you, and that's how you know. Now would you view it as an expression of love if I said, "I'm going to show you I love you," and then I slaughter my son? Would you see that as an expression of love, or would you be totally freaked out?

**Mary:** Yes.

Wouldn't you be totally freaked out and scared of the person? Wow, if they could do that to their own son and say, "This is love," what can they do to me? You'd be pretty scared wouldn't you? And this is what I'm suggesting. Since God is perfect and God always has His love available to give to a person, He doesn't need to go and slaughter anybody in order to prove His love. He just continues to give His love, and when the person desires to receive it, their heart becomes open and they receive it and then they know. But only then do they know. They won't know in any other way. They won't know by some sacrifice. In fact they'll be freaked out by a sacrifice just as you would be freaked out if I decided to kill my own son in order to prove I loved you. You'd be very frightened of me after that, I'm very sure.

And this is why a lot of people are frightened of God. If God can kill His own son in order to prove His love for me, what can He do to me in order to prove His love to somebody else? So again, the whole concept is flawed from a love perspective.

Now the love of God can't enter the person unless the person desires the love to enter. The person has to exercise their free will in order for the love to enter. If you love me and I go, "I don't want it," then your love will never enter me or change me or have an effect on me. It's the same with my relationship with God. If God wants to love me and I go, "I don't want it, I don't want it, stay away from me," then of course God's Love cannot enter me and therefore I will not have a loving relationship with God. It's as simple as that. It's my choice and it's very much the same; the only way that you know whether God loves you is when you are open to receiving love from God and you actually receive it. That's the only way you are going to know.

What it tells me, this sacrifice belief, is that they've received very little of God's Love, because if they'd received more of God's Love, they'd know that God is not capable of such things. God is not capable of the sacrifice of the beloved son in order to prove love to another beloved son. God's not capable of such a choice and as a result, once I've received enough love of God to know that, I would never believe in that belief.

**Mary:** Is this why some Christians then start to begin to focus on your life on earth and the idea of the sacrifice seems to be put a bit to the side or the back burner in terms of their faith?

If we are honest about it, what we can see is that the average Christian would have a huge amount of conundrums with regard to the blood sacrifice principle as being the expression of love. They feel these conundrums in their soul and so they try to avoid the discussion of it. They want to militantly believe it, because of the emotional reasons that we've previously discussed, but their own soul doesn't sit well with it. Once they've received some Divine Love, their own soul does not sit well with the belief. So then they try to distance themselves from the belief to an extent and then focus on the love that I demonstrated in my day-to-day life that they could see reflected in the Bible through the first century accounts. Then they try to imitate the love that I had.

Now that is certainly a far better direction to take, in my opinion. If you imitate the love that I had while I was alive then you would do well in your life. However, if you understand that God's Love transformed me to the point where I could love in that way, then you'll find it a much easier than a harder job to do. So many Christians find it very hard to imitate me because they have all these unloving emotions inside of them that keep rearing their heads occasionally and it's only by the reception of Divine Love that these unloving emotions will disappear. And if they understood that, they would find love a lot easier to both understand and practice in their day-to-day life.

For these reasons, I feel that the question is flawed on so many issues and it shows the flaw in the belief system. But it also comes from a basic understanding that God doesn't really love them until God sacrifices for them and then God loves them. You can see that if we applied such principles to our love for our partner, there'd be children dying everywhere. It would be a terrible world. It would be very fear-inspiring world too for all the children who were constantly having their life threatened, with their parents trying to prove to each other that they love each other. It's a terrible concept if you put it into a practical application on earth.

And I suggest to people, Christian or not, that any time it's a terrible concept for us to consider, it's a much worse concept for God to consider, because God is far better than any of us. God is far more loving than any of us. So yeah, the concepts are very, very flawed.

The person in conclusion asks, "What am I missing?" Well as I've explained, the person is missing a lot of things. They are firstly missing a personal relationship with God. Because if they had this personal relationship with God that was based on love only, they would understand that sacrifice is not necessary for love to exist. That's one thing. They are also missing an accurate concept of God. They believe God to be much worse than God actually is. They believe God to be worse than even the average person on earth, in terms of His behaviour and no wonder they are frightened of God if they believe God to be like this. In addition, they are not recognising within themselves, they are missing the emotions that drive them to being attracted to such a belief.

And there's a whole group of emotions. This idea and concept that if someone sacrifices for me they prove their love for me: Now how many times in a day-to-day relationship do they want their husband to sacrifice for them to prove that he loves them, instead of wanting their husband to do what he desires? If he desires to love her, he will show her the love that he has, not through sacrifice but through demonstration of other things. They demonstrate that these concepts that they are trying to understand with their mind even don't exist in their own soul. They also demonstrate that they are missing logic. They are missing logical analysis of these Bible verses, going, "I believe that from that from that verse and I believe that from that verse. These two are contrary beliefs that I'm believing. How can I marry these two contrary beliefs up and make them into a third thing where both of them are true?" It's a totally illogical thing to attempt such an argumentation. And this is one reason why Christians generally resort to anger and personal attack when they are arguing, because their actual arguments are often flawed logically. Because the logic is flawed they have to now revert to personal attack and condemnation of the individual by telling them they are going to go to hell rather than listening to the particular reasoning that a person has. So I feel she's missing that as well. I feel she's also missing the true definition of love.

**Mary:** This is what I wanted to ask you about.

She's missing this big thing.

**Mary:** It seems like many people on earth have married this idea of sacrifice, even if they're not Christians ...

Yes

**Mary:** ... this idea of sacrifice and love being synonymous.

They've joined them together.

**Mary:** And how do people move beyond that? Because that's entered them as an emotional belief. They see sacrifice as a sign of love. They don't feel love if someone's not sacrificing for them.

Yep. How many women feel that in a relationship? When a man doesn't sacrifice for them, they're not loved any more.

**Mary:** And so many of us were told by our parents, "You know, I'm sacrificing this for you because I love you," and as children we learnt that we should sacrifice our desires for ...

And that's the point. The point is we imbibe these teachings about God because we've had them forced upon us by our parents. We've had our parents tell us, while they're belting us, while we're experiencing pain and while they're being violent that they are being loving. We've had our parents tell us that they are sacrificing their life for us and that's an expression of their love for us. None of it is true. None of it is true. But unfortunately it colours our beliefs about love and once our beliefs about love are coloured we then accept religious beliefs that are also coloured by the same tainted love. You know that song, "Tainted love who oh, tainted love, you know, don't touch me please, I cannot stand it," you know like, he was saying in this song, there's all these things that the average person says, love does to people, but he could see that it's all tainted, it's all wrong.

**Mary:** It's all wrong.

And what we need to do in order to get rid of these belief systems inside of ourselves is to actually start to see that these versions of love are tainted. They are not love at all.

**Mary:** So we begin to see that with our intellect.

We need to see that with our intellect then grieve the fact that we've been taught it, like, as a condition of love.

**Mary:** And is it true that if we connect to our childhood experience where these things were done or we were told these things, if we really connect to our feelings of those times ...

... we'll have a lot of grief.

**Mary:** We'll find grief and not a sense of being loved and so as soon as we do that, that opens us up to receiving a new truth.

Yeah, the average child when it's being smacked and being told that it's being loved, doesn't feel it's being loved at the time. It feels it must believe the parent but it doesn't feel it's being loved. It needs to go back to that time and realise that the belting was violent and assault on them, a physical assault that was very, very damaging to them psychologically and emotionally. Once they allow themselves to feel that they'll grieve that and they'll forgive their parent for their actions and they'll also end up with this beautiful result which is "I'll no longer believe that love is sacrifice. I'll no longer believe that love is violent. I'll no longer believe that love is punishing."

And this is the underlying problem with what the Bible teaches. It teaches these things because the average person on the planet believes such things. And they are open to believing such things because the average person on this planet has had a parent who has taught them these things. So we need to understand the relationship of belief and how things are created. Something that we are going to discuss in some discussions in the future is this relationship between why a person accepts a certain belief and what emotions in them cause them to accept this belief that's obviously out of harmony with love when you look at it from a point of logic and also from a point of feeling. Like, any person who feels would sense that if I sacrificed my son to prove that I love you that I'm not being loving to my son and I'm not being loving to you and I'm freaking the hell out of anybody around me. The average person would see that. So why don't they see it with God? Because they've been taught this all their life and they've come to believe it. And for some reason they sort of believe that God gets away with things that the average person on earth would find destructive and very damaging. It's not true. God is better than any person on this earth, on the planet.

I feel with what we've discussed today in these FAQ's, if we could come to terms with that one fact, that God is love and God is not angry, God is not punishing. God does not need sacrifice. God does not need you to have some self-flagellation in order to prove that you love God. God feels love for you and the only reason why you don't feel it is that your heart is not open to feeling it. If we come to that conclusion, we would look at all the reasons why our heart is not open, rather than seeking a God who is an unloving God.

The God that you seek is the person you become. If you seek an unloving God, you are going to become an unloving person and at some point in your future you will need correction. This is why many Christians pass into the spirit world with a lot of correction needing to occur because they have come to believe in an unloving God. Therefore they've become unloving themselves as a result. You see many people of a religious nature on this planet acting violently in order to support their religious faith because they justify their violence by saying their God is violent. God is not violent. The god of their own imagination is violent. The real God who actually exists is not violent, is always loving, is always compassionate, always kind, always merciful, always understanding, always forgiving, always loving. And they need to come to accept that if they are truly ever going to have a relationship with God.
