

Frequently Asked Questions:

Christian Religion

By

Jesus (AJ Miller)

Session 1

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 by Jesus (AJ Miller) on the topic of the Christian Religion. The answers were given in an interview with Claire Heibloem, who posed frequently asked questions from members of the media and public, on 4th March 2013 in Wilkesdale, Queensland, Australia. In this session Jesus answers some of the many questions asked about the Christian Religious faith, including; life in the 1st century with Jesus and Mary's friends, having faith in the Bible, different Church based doctrines which Jesus disagrees with (specifically the Trinity), and how Christians generally feel when they pass into the spirit world. Jesus also discusses the practice of speaking in tongues, spirit influence upon current Christian Church leaders, and common mistakes for Christians to avoid when wanting a personal relationship with God.

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

0. Introductory comments

1. Please tell us of the early followers of Jesus who followed "The Way"

2. How did the early followers of Jesus differ from contemporary Christians?

3. Why was the courage of early Christian martyrs so strong?

4. Can Christians benefit from the Bible knowing it has been corrupted?

5. Does imagery of scripture become more vivid & meaningful in the spirit world?

6. How can Christians become a light for others?

7. How did the doctrine of the Trinity come about?

8. For what purpose did the church fathers create the Christian Trinity doctrine?

9. Where was the Church hierarchy mistaken with the Trinity doctrine?

10. Is the practice of speaking in tongues beneficial to connecting with God?

11. What Christian beliefs cause difficulties in finding the narrow path to God?

12. What mistakes should a Christian who wants a relationship with God avoid?

13. Are spirits guiding leaders of the church to change church teachings?

Appendix: FAQ Outline

0. Introductory comments

**Clare:** My name's Clare Heibloem. I've been a Catholic Christian all my life. I've always loved my faith; I've always loved the people that I've been to church with. I think my parents were pretty good examples to me. My friends were a support to me and as I got older I felt a deeper, deeper draw towards God. I wanted to really experience what it was like to be a Christian, to feel what it's like to be a Christian, and then here I am at over 55 years of age and I'm discovering the Divine Love and I'm not finding it terribly different from what I believed all along. And I really do feel that it is a step deeper, quite a step deeper, and I would like to find ways in which I don't leave my faith behind or my church aside because I love them so much, but I would like to find ways that I could actually bring both together and to make my faith and my quest towards God more real, more definite.

Good call. Yeah. Welcome, Clare.

**Clare:** Thank you so much. (Laughter)

So we've got a whole series of questions about Christian religion basically or things relating to Christian religion.

**Clare:** That's right. It's not a fundamentalist approach. It's a really a soulful approach and I've been taught well so I hope that these will get to really, really deeper issues.

Yeah good, that sounds great.

1. Please tell us of the early followers of Jesus who followed "The Way"

**Clare:** Could you please tell us about the early followers of Jesus who followed "The Way"?

Yes, well they called themselves "The Way" because I called the thing that I was discussing with them "The Way" to God, so that's why that terminology was eventually used to define the people who followed the teachings that I taught. Clare, you want to know about their personalities and natures or would you like to know about their general condition, or what kind of questions?

**Clare:** I would love to hear about how their lives were transformed.

Right.

**Clare:** Their whole being was transformed with a great deal of desire and ...

Well you may be disappointed to hear the answer to that question. (Laughter) The reality is that a lot of the transformations that occurred with the people we knew in the first century at the time did not really occur strongly until after I died. The main reason for that was, while they were listening to me and were fascinated about the Truths they were hearing, and there was quite a lot of soul-based desire driven by these Truths in terms of causing people to be quite fascinated, many of them didn't practice what they learned at all until after I passed. The main reason was that there wasn't a large amount of faith in them about what I was teaching. So while they could see that my example was quite clear they could see that obviously something had transformed me and they could see that I acted differently to every other person they'd ever met, they themselves had not personally experienced many of the things that I was teaching and so they weren't necessarily convinced that they could do it. They felt strongly that obviously something had happened to me, and some of them had a feeling that it had happened to me because of some kind of unique thing inside of me rather than understanding that it was as a result of the things that I was teaching them.

So up until my death there was a number, or you could say a series, of things that occurred - up until the point of my death. Around twelve to thirteen years before my death, so I was in my early twenties at this point, there were some events that happened in my life that caused me to leave my family and to live alone for a period of time. Eventually I went and lived in Capernaum which was on the edge of the Sea of Galilee, on the west side of the Sea of Galilee. In that little town, I had a little one-bedroom room if you like, and I began to share Divine Truth with others even though I was not yet at-one with God.

So, and this is not something that is mentioned in the Bible, I began to share the Divine Truth and as a result of sharing it, very similar things happened to what are happening currently in my life, and that is, there would be people attracted to the Divine Truth, attracted to what I'm speaking to them about, and attracted to the condition of love that I was in even though I was not at-one with God at that point in time. But of course they didn't have a strong feeling to embrace the teachings for themselves. They weren't always very passionate about prayer or any of the other things about becoming at-one with God. But there was a growing number, a very slowly growing number. From the time of 25 years of age onwards, around about, there was a slowly growing number of people who were listening. And I would walk around the different towns in the Sea of Galilee and visit different places. I worked fixing fishing nets for the fishermen and so I got to share a lot of the Divine Truth with lots of different people, just average people.

In that process many of them started to put into practice, or started to at least attempt to put into practice, some things about love that they were learning. They would talk about it and share it with others and so by the time I became at-one with God there was already quite a large following of people who had heard the Divine Truth. That being said, most of them hadn't personally practiced the Divine Truth because they couldn't understand the difference between intellectually hearing and understanding and a soul-based awareness and understanding. There was a lot of confusion about the difference between intellectual and soul-based awareness.

And so when I spoke of the different things that transform the soul and receiving Divine Love, and of course receiving Divine Love is very much about getting yourself into a state of humility and truth, many of them weren't humble, particularly to their own emotions and many of them weren't very truthful in their day-to-day life. As a result they would often be in a lot of argumentative places even though they were following me around. So even before I became at-one with God, you'd have people like Peter and others, like John and James, who knew me before I became at-one with God; they'd be following along behind me having their little arguments and fights about all sorts of issues that they hadn't been able to resolve from the things I was trying to teach them.

In addition to that there were large groups of women who were also very interested. Now it was more difficult for a woman because they just couldn't leave a home or a family and follow easily unless their husbands were willing to do so, and so for many of the women, as they were primarily, before I became at-one with God, before I was baptised, they took the opportunities to listen when I visited their town but they couldn't follow around and listen to everything of course. And of course there were no written things, very little written down at this point, so they could only listen and only hear through word of mouth what was being taught.

Now of course word of mouth as you know is quite a distorted (laughing) means of transmitting information because one person can say one thing and then the emotional filters of the next person filter all of that out and they relay the information, and so quite a lot of the information that people were hearing was actually already a distortion of what I was sharing. It was their slant, if you like, on what I was sharing and this occurred quite a lot as well. But there were actually large groups of women who were interested in Divine Truth. Sometimes the women were more interested than the men, and a few of them could follow because some of their men could follow. They had self-sustenance, enough money to follow somebody around for a short period of time so sometimes the women, and sometimes the whole family, would follow as a result. Of course most of that happened on foot or on a beast of some kind, like a donkey or an ass or a horse or whatever, and so you'd have people following around. Now this was all before my baptism, before I went down to the Jordan with John.

So during that period of time a lot of people heard the Divine Truth but because I was not yet at-one with God, similar to my condition at this point in time, many couldn't say for certain that they felt that they could follow it. They did not have a strong faith themselves, many of them; they did not have a strong faith in God or a strong faith to exercise with prayer. They did not often believe what I was saying. They were fascinated by it but didn't believe it, many of them, very similar to how most people are reacting today actually.

**Clare:** Yeah well, the story is quite similar. And it's true, I had not realised that in your life back 2,000 years ago, you were not at-one with God the whole time. I thought you were born at-one with God.

Yes, this is a common assumption for many Christians, that I was born at-one with God and was somehow special all through my life. While some of my experiences with God were obviously unique, while there were some unique things that happened with God during my life that hadn't happened to anyone prior, it didn't mean that I was some kind of special unique individual. When I say special unique individual, every person's a special and unique individual; I'm a special and unique individual the same as you are a special and unique individual. But in the sense of having some kind of special connection with God, I had to embrace the desire for God, inside of myself.

I had to desire it by myself, without God's influence, and this is something about my first century life that most people are unaware of. Now, my desire for God began quite young; by the age of five I had a fairly solid desire for God which was much greater than anyone else I knew at the time and that was unique. In fact, my parents thought me to be some kind of zealot; sometimes they thought I was quite nuts and crazy when it came to my relationship with God. They didn't understand it well, particularly my father; he struggled to understand where I was coming from. So although he believed I was the messiah, because of certain events that happened during my early childhood, he slowly came to feel that I wasn't the messiah as I started expressing opinions and ideas that were very different to his own.

He had a very strong concept about what the messiah would be, and at that point I didn't think it was me. My concept of the messiah I was looking for was completely different, and by the time I was in my teenage years we often had what you'd probably classify as arguments about that, with my father disagreeing quite strongly and sometimes violently with my opinion. By the time I was in my early 20's I had formulated quite strongly what I believed the messiah would be, which was very, very different to what my father believed the messiah would be, and my mum didn't really know either way. She was a person who was watching me develop and obviously she knew something was up, as mums generally do if they're connected with their children, but she couldn't really understand it either and quite often she thought I was crazy too, so by the time I was baptised by John even my mother still thought that there was something gone wrong with me, but she loved my nature.

She loved my loving nature. My father thought that there was something completely wrong with me and he didn't love my loving nature, so he struggled a bit more. And of course he was a member of the Sanhedrin by this stage so he struggled on a lot of levels with what I was teaching. But the general people were very similar to the people that we know now, who are currently interested in listening to Divine Truth, but who are still not certain about whether my claims about being Jesus are correct or not. And it was very similar in the first century. I claimed I was the messiah during this period of time. Around 25 years of age I was quite comfortable with claiming that publically, even though I was yet to be at-one with God, and people obviously had their different opinions about that.

So in a lot of ways, during those periods of time, it was very, very similar to the reactions that I'm getting right now. Once I became at-one with God, of course, things changed quite markedly, but there was still not a large degree of desire for the individuals who were listening to me, to develop their own relationship with God. In fact, on the earth at the moment many Christians have a much stronger desire to develop their own relationship with God, and many Muslims and many other people do too, by the way, than the people who were following me around did.

**Clare:** Wow. Well that's heartening, isn't it?

Yeah, in some ways. The difference though, I feel, for many of them in the first century, and maybe we'll talk about some of the differences in another question, is that there wasn't a strong predisposition of feeling that they already knew the truth, whereas what I find on earth now is that in many religions there is a strong feeling of 'I have the truth and I cannot accept anything more than what I've already been shared, what I already feel I know.'

Now that wasn't present in most of the people who followed in the first century. In the first century there was a huge amount of feeling in the people who followed me, that they weren't receiving any satisfaction from the religious teachings that they were being taught. There was no firm definition of what God was like; there was no firm idea about the spirit world, what happens after you die. There was no firm idea about the soul, and in fact there wasn't even a firm idea about the spirit body or anything like that, and so it was a very physical existence. As a result of that these people felt quite dissatisfied in their hearts, and so when somebody like myself came along it was tempting for almost anybody to listen to them, for a period of time at least, until they felt they could listen no more or if their soul was engaged. If their soul was engaged, if their heart was engaged, they would listen a lot even though they themselves didn't practice what they heard.

So they'd listen because it was fascinating but many didn't practice what they heard and in fact the majority of these so-called apostles for example, didn't practice what they heard here either and didn't do so until way after my death in many cases.

**Clare:** Are they the people that were called the God-fearers? They weren't committed but they were there?

Yeah. I would probably call them God-fearers for a number of reasons. (Laughter) One of the concepts of God that was very prevalent then and is still quite prevalent on the planet now, is this concept that you have to be afraid of God. Many of them were God-fearers in that complete sense, that they were very afraid of God. They were quite fatalistic but also they had this concept of destiny, that some unseen force was motivating their future destiny, who they believed to be God and whom they were quite afraid of because they felt quite negative things happen during their lives of course, which they blamed on God or they blamed on their own disobedience towards God. But they weren't clear on how they had disobeyed God because many of them were following the Torah; they were following what they believed to be God's Word at the time. And yet bad things were still happening to them so they couldn't understand how that was happening. So, as I said, there were a lot of very unclear ideas, but they were God-fearers. But many of them also had this idea that they wanted the Truth, they wanted to know. There was an openness to the Truth. There was a soul-based openness towards Truth, which I find very similar today in many of the people who are currently listening. Many of the people who are currently listening have a better understanding about a relationship with God than most of the people who were listening in the first century before my death.

There were a few that had a good understanding. Mary, being my wife, had a great understanding; John, who's called the apostle John, he had a pretty good understanding. He was quite sensitive at the soul level. There were others, like Cornelius and others, who I met after I became at-one with God, who gained quite a good understanding to a degree, before I passed, but the majority didn't have anywhere near a clear concept of what I was talking about most of the time. Hence, they had a lot of fights and arguments (laughter) about what I meant as a result, and those fights and arguments became quite extreme after my passing, so much so that they caused fracturing and fissures amongst ...

**Clare:** Is that the reason why many of them would just leave and go to India or far-flung areas?

Yeah, because they couldn't tolerate the belief systems that everyone else had. (Laughter) Many also had a strong desire to share Truth with others, too. That was once they had faith, and the faith came when I appeared to them after my death, but for many of them there was not a strong faith until that occurred.

**Clare:** Like, for example, with Thomas.

Yes. Thomas was my brother and he was a man who had a lot of doubts about me because he'd grown up with me all of my life so he saw me as a child and he was a younger brother of mine. He was around five or six years younger than me but he had a lot of doubts about me as a child because he saw me growing up. He sort of viewed me as a normal child, normal teenager, just someone who had some ideas that were very different and then he heard the Divine Truth because I spoke about it openly in my family as I was growing up, at what you would now classify as the dinner table, so he'd heard it most of his life. He was quite fascinated by it but he also sort of saw me as his brother, he didn't see me as anything unique and I didn't feel I was anything unique, but when I became at-one with God he could see there was quite a large difference there. He had some faith, but when I died all of his faith deserted him.

That occurred too many of the disciples at the time. At the time of my death, it was to them like the most crushing experience because they sort of felt like everything that I'd spoken of was not true anymore and it wasn't until I reappeared to them after my death, in different bodies ... But they could sense who I was through what I was saying and they realised I was still alive, and as a result of that things changed in their faith.

2. How did the early followers of Jesus differ from contemporary Christians?

**Clare:** How did the early followers of Jesus differ from contemporary Christians?

Well, if we look at the average contemporary Christian, the Christian in modern day times, there's a very firm belief in the Bible. In the first century, in the people who listened to me, there wasn't much of an understanding of the written word. They understood that there was the Torah, the first five books of what is now the Bible, written by Moses. Many of them weren't lettered enough to have read them and so they relied on the priests and so forth to tell them what those particular words said. Some of them would go to the synagogue during the week and on the weekends, and they would listen to the presentations of the minister of the synagogue at the time, who would read passages of the prophets or read passages of the Torah, and so they would come to understand through the word of mouth what those particular books said. In that regard they were similar, in the sense that there was a book that they were attempting to follow but it was the Jewish religion they were attempting to follow.

Christians today generally have a very firm opinion about whether the Bible is completely God's Word or not, whereas these people did not have a firm opinion that the Torah was God's Word. They felt that it was the channelling, the information that came through Moses from God, but they didn't feel that it was restrictive in the sense that they felt there was more to it.

So I feel that's one primary difference, in that they generally had a greater openness, and here I'm talking about the average person, not the average Pharisee or Sadducee, because the average Pharisee or Sadducee had a very firm opinion about what God's Word was and a very firm opinion of the Torah and as a result, had a very firm opinion that I was heretical, and that is pretty plain if persons even read what is recorded in the Bible about the history of my time.

So that's one sort of difference. It's similar, but in Christians today there is a lot of rigidity about the Bible being God's Word, whereas in the first century there was generally less rigidity amongst the people who listened about the Torah being God's Word.

In the first century it was a much more physical existence than now. As you can imagine, everyone was eking out a living and quite often that involved a lot of their attention. Nowadays there's a lot more free time; the average Christian has a lot more free time on their hands than the average person who listened to me in the first century had. Unfortunately, free time can cause a lot of trouble, as you're aware. I think a lot of Christians are aware that sometimes they use their free time in ways that distract them from their own faith, but it also gives you time to study, it gives you time to understand, it gives you time to contemplate, which wasn't always available to people in the first century.

Another way, in terms of emotionally, there are very similar emotions: The Jews had this viewpoint that they were the promised ones, that they were the children of God, that they were the children that God selected, and the Christians today have the same concept or idea that they are the children God selected. Both concepts are incorrect, by the way, but they are the concepts that exist. So there are very many parallels between the Jewish faith and speaking to people with the Jewish faith, and now speaking with people in the Christian faith, a lot of parallels. In the first century they didn't have a large concept about emotions; they were eking out a living and they probably lived in their emotions more fully than people today.

In other words if they felt angry they'd usually express their anger a lot more rapidly than a person will today. In some cases that was good because you got to see the real person rather than the facade that you often see today. But in some cases it wasn't good because they acted in a manner that degraded their own condition and that caused all sorts of moral issues for them in their progress, so the average Christian today is probably in a better moral state than the average person that I spoke to in the first century.

I feel that the state of ethics is very similar to people in the first century though. I feel the state of ethics hasn't changed much in the last two thousand years since I've been observing the earth, mostly because people become emotional about their belief systems and then all the ethics they have fly out the window in their emotional state, so the state of ethics is quite different.

Obviously in the environment I lived in in the first century, women were not treated very well. It was a major problem in fact, for the souls of men, that women weren't treated very well because men were often the perpetrators of violence towards women, which degraded the men's condition emotionally and their soul condition, so men today, particularly Christian men, are usually in a much better emotional condition.

Although, that being said, they still have many of the same issues that the men of the first century had towards women and this is why some of the Pauline Principles of not having a woman teaching in the congregation for example, are still present in the Christian faith, because the men want to hold onto these particular principles and they don't honour the fact that actually men and women are equal from God's perspective. This was something I tried to teach quite strongly in the first century without much success at all, because there was so much of a heavy sway, a heavy bent, towards men dominating women.

So the men today are probably a lot more open to having an equal relationship whereas the men in the first century saw their women more as possessions, very much so. It was very rare in fact, to find a man who didn't see his woman as a possession and that was a major problem. It was not only a major problem for the men but it was a major problem for the women in terms of hearing Divine Truth and listening to it because they could hear that I was saying, that men and women were equal, and then they'd go home to their men and start to try to live that kind of life and of course the men would become violent. Many women died at the hands of their husbands as a result of hearing Divine Truth in the first century.

There were many, many more women martyrs of Divine Truth in the first century than men, particularly while I was alive, and many of them died while I was alive as a result of the amount of rage that was in the men towards women and the amount of control that the men had. If a woman listened without her man, she risked a very large amount of rage and violence as a result and this is why there are comments in the Bible that I came to make enemies between family members, but it's not what I actually said. What I actually said was that the Truth would create enemies within the family because some family members would want to hold onto unloving belief systems.

So, yeah, that was the primary thing that happened back then. The women nowadays, of course, have a lot more say as to what happens in their family, particularly in western countries where Christianity is practiced generally. They have a lot more autonomy than they had in the first century so the life of women, and particularly women who were listening to what I was preaching in the first century, was very, very different to women listening now.

**Clare:** I know within my own church, because of the lack of priests and in very isolated areas; women are taking on roles of ministry that was never even heard of a generation ago. And it just seems to be such a liberating, wonderful direction forward.

It's an excellent direction forward. It's a direction that mankind should have been following for many thousands of years.

**Clare:** It seems to have taken so long.

It has. There have been cycles between men and women as well where historically, right through ancient history, sometimes women were dominant and the men were subservient, and the men's role was basically procreation, serving the woman for sexual purposes and providing all of their material needs. Then of course men got very angry about that role and they flipped over, and by the time of my arrival in the first century obviously we lived in a very male-dominant society. And it still is; if you look as a whole at the earth, it is still a very male-dominated society. Of course there are many women who are very angry about that now, just as there were many men angry about the previous condition. And there are many men spirits, women spirits who are angry about that now, who are trying to change that, and anger in either direction towards the other gender is obviously never going to result in any positive growth on the planet, so that is something that I wanted to correct right from the first century.

Mary was often present in all of my discussions with men. As you know, since you've visited some Arabic countries now, there's still a separation of men from women generally and you know that when men get together they don't necessarily like the women being present, and that's really what it was like in the first century.

So my having Mary right next to me in every single discussion was a major confrontation and as a result there was a lot of hatred and animosity projected towards Mary because many of the men felt that I was controlled by Mary. They didn't understand that actually no, I was driving the desire to have Mary with me because of trying to confront this very big emotional issue that these men had in the first century.

That is a very different thing to nowadays. Nowadays myself and Mary can sit in front of a group of Christians with no trouble whatsoever. Back then if I went along to a group to speak, often the men would be outraged before I even opened my mouth just because of my bringing a woman along with me, and many of them of course knew Mary's past as well which made it even worse for them. I was constantly addressing those issues with them but it had very little effect, to such a point that, for example, ones like Peter raped Mary after my death in his anger with women and his anger with Mary and his anger about a lot of things. As a result many of the so-called apostles did not have as enlightened a position as what many people today assume.

I feel other ways that people were different were more to do with physical things than emotional things because the reality is, emotionally, mankind hasn't changed a huge amount in that time, unfortunately. There are pretty much similar emotions in people today as there were back then, with one exception, and that is that there is a layer of facade over the top of them. Back then, men could get away with having some vigilante violence, for example. Nowadays a person would generally be thrown in gaol for such an action and so a man might feel like it but doesn't do it. There are a lot of things, I feel, people do like that today, where they feel like doing something but they don't do it, whereas back then it probably would have been done and often was done. So you got to see the real person through that. But aside from that, not a huge amount of difference. I feel relating to people then was very similar to relating to people now. Yeah.

3. Why was the courage of early Christian martyrs so strong?

**Clare:** What sustained the courage and determination of the early Christian martyrs of Rome, to be so strong? This is your archetypal strong martyr who was full of fire, full of zeal, full of love.

Yeah, great question, Clare. It's a very important question actually because I feel even today a lot of Christians don't have this kind of faith. And you must remember that many of these so-called martyrs for the Christian faith ... there were two classes, well there were three classes of martyrs, I would say.

The first class of martyrs were a class of people who just wanted to confront absolutely everything; they were actually quite enraged. In fact, there are historical records a hundred or so years after my passing, of groups of Christians going up to a Roman ruler and telling the Roman ruler that he should crucify them all. Like, they were telling him what to do. And of course, because he thought they were pretty cheeky he would crucify some of them and then he'd send the others away and tell them go and jump off a cliff if they wanted to die.

Those kind of martyrs did not have a large amount of faith; they had a large amount of rage. Many of them were classified later as martyrs but unfortunately they were just people with a lot of rage who were constantly prodding and poking and pushing political power. They had a huge amount of rage with political power, a huge amount of rage with religious power and they used the so-called Christian teachings as an excuse to just prod and poke and antagonise everyone around them all the time. Of course those particular people weren't following my teachings at all. They believed they were but they weren't following my teachings at all, and of course they passed into the spirit world into quite dark conditions as a result of their antagonistic feelings and belief systems.

Then there were a group of people who followed the Way because families and friends followed the Way, and as a result of their following the Way and the result of persecution, they died as martyrs. In other words, they would probably not have wanted to die any other way, because if they had they would have then had to get the ostracism of their family or their friends. They were more afraid of their family and friends than they were of embracing the Divine Truth, if you like. So those kinds of people died and many of them still had a lot to work through after they passed in the spirit world as a result of those emotions, how they didn't do it for their own conviction but they did it for the conviction of others and their emotional addiction with their family or their friends. So they are the first two groups of people.

The third group of people, the people you're really asking the question about, were a group of people who sincerely felt a connection with God. Now these people had received Divine Love after my passing and reappearance too. Many of them had actually had a personal experience with me. I appeared to over 500 people after my passing, and so hundreds and hundreds of people had a personal experience of knowing that they would never die, knowing that no matter what happened to them physically they would pass into the spirit world and still be alive. Now that wasn't a very strong concept in other religious faiths. It was frequently mentioned in other religious belief systems, but most people had a strong fear of death.

They were terrified of dying and for that reason they'd do almost anything if you threatened them with death, whereas these Christians, you couldn't threaten them with anything to change their mind. Because they had a personal experience with me that they would remain alive, they had very, very strong faith as a result, and their faith was so strong that it caused them to engage this relationship with God. Now as a result of engaging the relationship with God in the manner I taught, they then, on top of that, received Divine Love in their own soul and the Truth of everything became a firm foundation for their future life.

As a result of that they became fearless. They were without fear and the more Divine Love you receive the less fear you have. As a result of that and as a result of their strong beliefs in the "resurrection," as they called it, which was not really a resurrection but rather a life that would continue to occur after a person has died, their strong knowing that was because they saw it happen with me. Many of the people who obviously heard the Christian beliefs at the time could speak directly with one of the persons who I'd spoken directly with after my death. So they had spoken to them. When I appeared to five hundred people, you can imagine that every one of those five hundred people would have had a very, very strong faith. They did have a very, very strong faith after those appearances, and every one of those people were very firm in the fact they'd talked to me after I'd died. They'd had their personal experience and then any person who they taught could just speak with them about that experience.

**Clare:** So not all of the apostles had that experience?

Not all of them, not all of the so-called apostles had that experience. There was a large number, five hundred people, a large number of men and women who had that experience.

Now, some of the apostles were in very dark condition after I died. Peter was one of them. He was in a very dark condition.

**Clare:** Despite being crucified upside down as they say, well whether that happened or not... legend I understand?

Eventually, yes, that's what happened to him but he was in a very dark condition while I was alive. He was one of these men who was very, very terrible towards women. He treated women very badly. His own wife he treated very badly and he generally treated women badly. He treated my wife badly by raping her after I died, just two days after my death. So he was in a very, very dark condition as you can imagine and it took him quite a lot of time even after he passed in the spirit world to release himself from that condition. However, by the time of Pentecost, which is fifty days after my death, he was in a much stronger condition of faith because I'd appeared to him. He went through lots of feelings of repentance about how he'd treated Mary; he went through lots of feelings of repentance about his life generally, and so he did receive some Divine Love at that point in time.

As did many of the other disciples, well so-called apostles, the men, but remember there are large groups of women. There was a larger group of women than men. Many of the women of course shared Truth far more than men did because the men were very afraid of the general society around. As a result of that, the Christian belief system spread. Many of the women taught their children the Christian belief systems, through prayer. The women, often they'd received Divine Love. They'd seen me, they'd had a relationship with Mary, they saw me after my death. They had a lot of faith as a result of that. They'd teach their children how to pray, how to do all the things we taught them to do and as a result of that the Christian belief systems grew even with the men's opposition to it growing.

It grew quite rapidly and many of the women had a much stronger faith as a result of receiving Divine Love than the men did, but often the men would come around because they'd see their wives changing and their love growing and all sorts of things happening as a result. And so, you started to see the growth of the Christian belief systems after that.

Of course, unfortunately, because it was all transmitted word-of-mouth, there was also a growing distortion of Christian belief systems. By a hundred years later there were already large distortions of Christian belief systems prevalent on the planet, all given word-of-mouth because most people didn't have a book or a scroll to read and unfortunately you get a lot of distortions through that process. So that also occurred. I think that sort of gives a bit of a summary of the martyrs.

**Clare:** That was brilliant actually and I can really identify with the three groups. Because I remember as a young child wondering how I would be sort of wanting to be true to God and wondering how on earth they did it and feeling absolutely powerless and aware of my own inadequacy.

Yeah, a lot of times though it's the fear of death and what happens afterwards and the fear of violence and all of these kinds of things that cause us to worry about whether we will maintain integrity.

The sincere Christians, the ones who had love in their hearts, because of their personal experiences with the resurrection, what was called the "resurrection of Christ", which is really just my continued existence, had a very strong faith. Unfortunately, in times after that, the martyrs were sort of treated like the pinnacle of Christianity and unfortunately what would often happen is that people would want to be martyred. It was a very, very nasty group of emotions that began to develop from there. From the second century through to the sixth century in particular, there were just literally thousands of men who were "martyred" for their so-called Christian faith.

**Clare:** And then lies would start spreading about martyrdom.

They were just terrible men, they were men who were antagonistic, violent, God's Love hadn't touched their heart at all and yet they were so-called martyrs for the Christian faith. They were nothing like the Christianity I taught; nothing like it. They were war-mongering, politically motivated people who were often very destructive of other people and of themselves and they often passed into the spirit world in very dark conditions as a result of their violent actions.

4. Can Christians benefit from the Bible knowing it has been corrupted?

**Clare:** I've done a little bit of Bible study and how the scriptures were actually formulated and it's so true, that they were written, what, 150AD? 175AD is another year, and they'd only used Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But it wasn't the actual person who you knew who wrote those scriptures; it was the community. And so you would be having all sorts of stories put forward. Oh, "This happened, that happened," and little legends and parables would come in.

Yes. The very earliest manuscripts that they have now were only five verses of John. In John, chapter, I think it's 18. Those were in 125AD, so they were written around twenty five to thirty years after John's death and that's the very earliest manuscript they have. But it's only five verses. And the very earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament that they have is actually in the early third century - late second century, early third century - and you can imagine what it was like: there's the copying of text, and most copies were not done for posterity; they were done to be used, so of course they got very grubby and used as you would expect. The preservation of texts wasn't really a high priority at that point in time, and so it was primarily word of mouth how Truth was transmitted. Unfortunately that got quite severely distorted at different times.

**Clare:** I know I mostly enjoy using scripture for prayer, to be able to read - it's only possibly a short amount - just for it to reach your heart. You sort of read through it and some words will come out to you and you'll take those words and contemplate on them and reach deep down.

So is that the question you wanted to ask about?

**Clare:** What is your opinion? How can Christians read scripture to evoke prayer and contemplation, to open their hearts to God?

Yeah, that's a good question. I feel quite strongly that there are probably three primary things that I would recommend that Christians do. There are whole groups of ... and this really applies to anything you read, not just to the Bible. I suppose for most Christians they see the Bible as God's Word, but if we see the Bible for a moment as a book, just like any other book, then we can read any book in this same way that I'm recommending that Christians read the Bible. And that is this:

Any verse in the Bible that encourages you or makes you feel like being more violent or angry or resistive or emotionally disconnected, any verse like that, then my recommendation to Christians reading those verses is to not assume that they are God's Word, because God's Words always up-build and encourage; they are always loving; they are always beautiful; they cause soul openings. And any passage in the Bible ... and there are many passages in the Bible, as you know, that do cause a person to go into quite a lot of doubt and misunderstandings about God, and all sorts of actual issues. There's the feeling that sometimes overcomes you when you're reading different passages in the Bible of "Whoa, that was pretty heavy and that was pretty dark." These feelings are telling you that these are not necessarily the reflections of God's Word but rather the reflections of men who are using fear, violence and other things to control people. So with anything like that I would put them to one side as unresolved in terms of "I can't see how this is a part of God or God's Word."

Then there's another group of scriptures that you can read, and the Bible is littered with these groups of scriptures, that are inspiring to the soul. They are scriptures that inspire you to ethical behaviour, inspire you to more moral behaviour, inspire an openness towards Truth, inspire an openness towards becoming more loving, inspire an openness towards logic and wisdom; many of these verses are in the Old Testament as much as in the New. These kinds of verses are the verses, as a Christian, that I would be sitting with and contemplating.

I'd be allowing myself to ponder about and reflect upon them, because if you can allow yourself to ponder and reflect upon those particular things they will inspire you to loving action and inspire you to personal growth, and that's definitely something that's connected with God. That's how God operates. God's always trying to inspire us to become perfect.

So my suggestion to a Christian is, "Those particular verses, don't throw them out with the other verses," and this is the problem with having a discussion about any book. It is that generally a person says "Well this particular thing is wrong in that book so I throw out the whole book," and that's not a wise thing to do under any circumstances. Often there is truth mixed with error in the same book, just as there is truth mixed with error in the Bible, there's truth mixed with error in the Koran, there's truth mixed with error in most holy books on the planet, and in fact, in pretty much all books on the planet there's truth mixed with error.

Now I find it interesting that the average person, when they read an average book they go, "Oh, that doesn't sound good. Oh, that sounds really good. Oh, that doesn't sound good." They have a different opinion of the different passages that they're reading, but when they read something that purports itself to be God's Word, such as the Koran or the Bible, they're now reading it trying to believe everything, which is really an illogical proposition when you think about it, for a number of reasons. Like, it's impossible for all of the infinity of God to fit into a book. And it's impossible for all of the Truth of God to fit into a book. In fact it's impossible for all the truth of how our body works to fit into one book (laughing) let alone the Truth of God. So it's impossible for these books that claim to be God's Word to actually be God's Word for very, very simple reasons.

Now, if I read the Bible assuming that everything in it is God's Word, then I'm going to try to force myself into accepting different things where I would normally, under a different circumstance, go "Oh, I think I can discard that because that doesn't feel very loving." And this is the problem we face when we read the Bible and any other holy book. We need to see them as a book rather than seeing them as everything that God has said. If we see them as everything that God has said, we then try to shut down our own internal soul's ability to determine what is loving and what is unloving, whereas when we read another book that doesn't purport itself to be God's Word, we have a far more open mind.

With another book we go, "Yeah, that was not loving at all. I don't think I can believe that," or we go, "Wow, that was really fascinating. That really caused an openness in my heart. Wow, that's something I really want to retain." We do that quite easily with other books but as soon as the book is claimed to be God's Word we throw out this, what I would view as a reasonable, logical way of analysing truth versus error; we throw it all out. And we just accept all of the truth, and all of the error as truth, in the book.

This is a very dangerous thing to do because when you accept everything that's truth and error in the same book, you discount your own ability to determine what is truth and error. You're giving up your ability to feel and sense what is right and what is wrong. Now, if God is ever going to write His Law on our hearts, as the Bible says, we need to understand what is right or wrong without needing a book. In fact, the only 'book' that God actually has available to Him to write down His feelings is your heart. If you don't use that 'book,' if you're already discounting the usage of that 'book,' if you're throwing it away and instead reading a book in its place, you are throwing away the only way that God can enter your heart.

**Clare:** And in that respect you could say, if you're at-one with God then you actually become the 'Word made flesh' because you are the living Word.

That's correct.

**Clare:** ... and it's in the hearts of people who are at-one with God.

And this is where John chapter 1 is often misinterpreted in terms of myself. I became the living Word of God because God's Word was written on my heart. Now everybody thinks that that was my unique position but it's not. Every single person who ever lives and who has ever lived has the opportunity of having the same Word written on their heart in the same way. Then they become a living Word of God, where everything they do, every action they take, everything they feel is in complete harmony with God and complete harmony with love. This is where I feel it's very, very dangerous to have a book that obviously has errors in it which is then taken as the only truth. You give up this ability to have the Word of God written on your heart when you do that. You call the book God's Word when in reality God wants to make you the living Word of God.

I feel that brings me to probably the third issue with reading the books: if we read the book with two primary goals in mind, number one is the goal of knowing God. What does this passage or verse in the Bible show me about God? Now if it shows me anything unloving about God it's probably not true because God is a God only of Love. God isn't a god of wrath, not a god of punishment, not a god of all of those other things. He is a God of wisdom and He is a God of justice but not in the manner that most Christians believe because they have accepted the Bible version of justice which is violent, and God's not violent in the way God administers justice. So God is better than the best person on earth, and if we make this presumption that God is better than the best person on earth, when we read the Bible, every time we see a characteristic or attribute of God that is better than most people on earth, we then go "Wow, that's something that tells me about God."

Conversely, any time we see anything that tells me something that's like the average person on earth we go, "That can't be God." (Laughter) It can't be God because it's angry and the average person on earth is angry and God's better than the average person on earth (laughter), or, "That can't be God because that was violent and the average person on earth's violent but God's not violent." So we can discount all of those things; we can read with intelligence, we can read with our logic.

In addition, we need to read with a second goal and that is, we need to reflect upon how we can become more loving through what we're reading. When I read the Bible now, for example, I reflect upon what it teaches me about ethics, what it teaches me about morals, what it teaches me about love and how I can become more of that by removing from me the underlying emotional tendencies that I have to not be like that; not by trying to be like that.

Most Christians are trying to be good while at the same time they recognise they have tendencies towards bad. My suggestion is to recognise the tendencies towards bad and eradicate them from the soul through a process of feeling, through a process of identifying what the motivations are and why you have them, and releasing them from the soul. Now, if the average Christian did that I feel they would become at-one with God very rapidly through those positive experiences.

I feel, when they become fixated on the Bible being God's Word as they do, they now discount the ability of God to write the Word on their heart and they also, unfortunately, remove themselves from the Divine Truth that I taught, because there are large distortions of the Divine Truth in the Bible just as there are large distortions of the Divine Truth in almost every book that you could read, and so unfortunately they finish up restricting themselves. And it's like almost placing a self-imposed prison around yourself when you do that. God wants you to continue growing infinitely. God doesn't want you to be in a prison. God wants a very, very different relationship than what the person who focuses on the Bible being God's Word finishes up obtaining.

Of course once a person passes, many spirits realise that the Bible isn't all God's Word. They realise in fact there are some things that are just outright lies in "God's Word" and there are some things that are distortions of the Truth in "God's Word" as well as some Truth. Sometimes they realise that many years after investigating it in the spirit world, and they give up those concepts and then they find it easier to find God, ironically, as a result of that.

And that's what I'm suggesting to Christians on earth. You'll find it easier to find God if you allow God to write His Word on your heart rather than believing that the Bible is God's Word. You will find it much easier to find God that way.

5. Does imagery of scripture become more vivid & meaningful in the spirit world?

**Clare:** It was after reading Robert Lees books that I found it interesting... he was talking about the imagery of the scriptures existing in the spirit world, and I found that quite, quite wonderful.

Yes. If you look at the Bible with a completely open mind, which I find most Christians don't do because they've often been taught to have a very rigid perspective of different passages in the Bible, but if you look at it with a completely open mind it contains many inspiring truths. Unfortunately they don't live much on Earth because the doctrinal issues raised by the Bible take precedence to the inspiration in most of the teachings, and of course there are a lot of ministers and priests who also want control. They are there with the hellfire and brimstone type of control over their congregations which is not very inspiring (laughter). It's threatening but not inspiring. Now, if a person actually reads the Bible from a perspective of wanting to be inspired they will find many things in the Bible that will inspire them.

In the spirit world every single thing that is about priests and control is discarded from the Bible, so most people who are still interested in understanding the Bible, even as they progress in the spirit world, in their early progress they generally very rapidly discard the rules and regulations of the priesthood from the Bible. Instead they look at all the inspiring things about love, truth, character development, ethics, morality; they look at all of those issues in the Bible and that's what they apply. As a result the Bible becomes more of a living Word because it now resonates with the Word that God is trying to write on your heart. As a result of that it becomes alive. Many of the verses that the average Christian would have read in the Bible while they were on Earth and didn't find very inspiring, would now, when they hit the spirit world, become very inspiring because they read them again with a completely different understanding. We're capable of doing this while on Earth of course. We could choose to just read the Bible in this way on Earth, that allows us to be inspired by it, discarding all the rule, regulation and all the other things that cause us to go into this really shut down emotional place, and instead engaging the positive aspects of it, which are very, very beautiful in fact.

By the way, the Koran could be read in a very similar way. Ironically many of these holy books could be read in a very similar way. If we did that, we would not only be allowing this Word of God to be written on our heart but we'd also be quite engaged by parts of the Bible that previously we were not interested in. That's what happened with me in the first century. Obviously I had parts of the Bible available to me.

**Clare:** Could you give an example of that?

Well, let's look at the book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, look at the book of Lamentations, look at the book of Solomon, look at the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, at all those books. Now let's imagine you read them from the perspective of being inspired. When I did that in the first century, I started reading through the book of Isaiah and Jeremiah for example, and then I found little passages like the passage that says that God wants to change my heart from a heart of a stone into a heart of flesh. And I look at that passage which is in the book of Jeremiah and I go, "Whoa, this was the key reason that caused me to long for Divine Love in the first century." I realised that was what God was trying to do, and all these prophets through history were alluding to this state, where God could write His Word on your heart. But to do that, instead of having the heart of a stone, like a violent, angry, resistive heart, we needed to have a heart of the flesh, a soft, permeable, beating heart that cared and felt.

**Clare:** There's somewhere else where it talks about "I don't want your holocausts; I just want your heart." (Jesus laughing) I said, "Wow ..."

Yeah, that's right. I think that the more modern translation of that is "I don't want your sacrifice," and this is a very big concept in Christianity today, that sacrifice is important; you've got to sacrifice. They all focus on my life being the sacrifice, which is all a misunderstanding actually. Like, I was never encouraging my disciples to sacrifice all the time. I was talking to them about God's abundance all the time, that they didn't need to sacrifice if they fully engaged this relationship with God and that all the other things would be added to them. As I said, as was recorded in the book of Matthew, these particular statements become alive to a person once they read things with a different perspective, and this is what happened to me with the books that were available to me at the time. They were books that became alive. For example I read the book of Hosea, and remember how in that book how he was with an adulterous wife? His wife continually committed adultery and he wanted to discard her, he wanted to just get rid of her and according to him God kept saying, "Forgive her, have her back; forgive her again, have her back; forgive her again, have her back." And I thought about that from my perspective in the first century; I was looking at the world around me and I saw nobody was forgiving, and this whole concept of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was killing society and I thought that there has to be a better way. Then I looked at that book and it inspired me to think about it; I thought about it and I went, "Wow, God's encouraging constant forgiveness, even for actions that the average person would find completely unbearable."

**Clare:** That's a beautiful, beautiful book. "Come back to me with all your heart, don't let fear keep us apart."

Exactly, and it talks about the relationship between fear and desire, fear in doing badness. It talks about all sorts of things that inspired me to actually understand how to embrace the condition of becoming at-one with God. Now, I feel that if the average Christian read a book like that with that inspiration, they'd be quite inspired too, but unfortunately many of us read it just as a story, or as a thing that we must do. You know, "We must forgive," is the average Christian's perspective, "We must forgive." Most Christians, if they are honest with themselves, don't feel like forgiving very much at all, particularly when wrong is done against them, and this is why many Christians have been heavily involved in wars throughout history; if they were forgiving they would never have gone.

But if this verse, if this passage had really inspired them they'd start to realise, "Wow, this tells me a lot about my relationship with God. I'm only going to have a relationship with God if I forgive. I'm going to need to learn everything about forgiveness even when the other person's not sorry." In the book of Hosea his wife was not sorry; she went and did it again. She wasn't sorry but he was encouraged to forgive, and so you go, "Wow, this teaches you so much about God's Love," you see, and these are the areas in the Bible that I feel can be very inspirational. In fact in the spirit world they are the areas that are so inspirational for many, many people who are Christian and also many people who weren't Christian on earth. They become inspirational passages that help guide and direct their process of growth towards God.

6. How can Christians become a light for others?

**Clare:** From Isaiah 9, which is quoted in Matthew 4:16-17; "The people in darkness have seen a great light," and God calls us to be a light for others. How do we best do this?

A very good question. when you read a verse like that, which was obviously a verse I quoted as well in the first century, you realise that we need to become the light of the world, but most people don't understand how this is accomplished. It's not necessarily accomplished through your words or your deeds. It's accomplished first by your heart changing. In the first century I referred very frequently to this concept that you had to build your faith on a solid foundation, and the solid foundation is not to do it all intellectually, but rather that your heart changes and causes you to take specific actions.

What I was constantly recommending ... many of the illustrations that I gave in the first century were illustrating the way the heart will have to change. Remember, I talked about old wineskin and the new wine in an old wineskin. Because the old wineskin was rigid and could not stretch, if you put new wine in it while it was still fermenting and everything, it would just burst. So a new wine needed a new wineskin that could stretch with the changes that were happening to the wine, and this was an illustration of how the soul changes. If the soul's going to change it's going to need to stretch, it's going to need to be transformed; it's going to be challenged, if you like. All of these illustrations were alluding to the Book of Isaiah; that's how your light comes to shine to the world, by your soul's emotions changing from being unloving to being loving.

I feel that the average Christian on the planet at the moment does not understand this, because the average Christian is antagonistic towards a person who's an unbeliever, attacking towards a person who's an unbeliever, critical of a person who's an unbeliever and judgemental of a person who's an unbeliever. Now these are emotions that are not attractive. They are emotions that are dark, in fact. They darken your soul. If a person truly receives God's Love into their heart, those emotions don't exist anymore and they become bright. I was also referring to the fact, and this was something to help spirits, that as your soul condition improves, your spirit body actually physically becomes brighter, so this was a way to tell, from a spirit's perspective, whether a person they were listening to was actually in a developed state or not.

So a spirit, when he looks at another spirit lecturing him on different principles, he can look at the soul and go, "How dark are you compared to me? Oh wow, I'm brighter than you are. Why am I listening to you?" (Laughter) "Why am I listening to somebody who's so dark?" And this is a great way of determining truth when you're in the spirit world.

But also, while the person's on earth, once a person is enlivened by the Word of God in their heart, they will feel brighter and more attractive to be with. A lot of people came to listen to me in the first century, not because of anything I said and not because of any miracle that I'd supposedly performed, but just because they felt good in my company. The reason why they felt good in my company was that they didn't feel judged, they didn't feel lectured, they didn't feel like I was yelling and screaming at them and telling them what to do all the time; they didn't feel all of these things that they did feel from the Pharisees and Sadducees, their religious leaders. They felt very attracted to that and this is what it means to let your light shine to the world. Your light is your attractiveness. You don't have to go out and lecture the world about what is right and what is wrong. You yourself need to bring yourself into harmony with what is right and what is wrong and make sure that you personally have the love present inside of your soul. Once you do that it will become obvious to anyone around you who has an open heart that something has changed, that something is different.

**Clare:** And to have your light covered with ... as they say, "Don't cover it with a bushel ..."

Yep, or a basket, to use a modern detail, yep.

**Clare:** So what would that mean? What would you be doing? Would you be holding back, would you be hiding, you'd be ...?

I was talking about the relationship between fear and desire. A lot of people have these sparks of desire that get generated in them, but because of their fear and their terror they never let that light or spark shine. I was talking about how, with regard to the way we work with God, when we allow God to transform our heart, it generates within us certain passions and desires to be different, to share and be different, be ourselves and all sorts of things. Now that is letting our light shine, but if we put it under a basket or a bushel, inside of an enclosure, the light can't shine. Why would we hide our light? The only reason we'd hide our light is that we're afraid of something, and this is what I was referring to. I could see that many of the people who were following me in the first century were very afraid of confronting, through their changed feelings, the world around them. For example, many of the men wanted to have a better relationship with their wives, a more open relationship like I had with Mary, so what did they do? They started to practice that and many of the other men criticized them and pulled them down and treated them badly and they became afraid and so then they shut down their own light. Many of the women, they'd be inspired to have a more open and honest relationship with their men, to work through sexual issues and all sorts of things. They'd go home to their men and because their men had a tendency towards violence the women would become afraid and shut themselves down, and as a result would be hiding their light under a basket. This is what I was referring to, this tendency to allow fear to guide our actions rather than desire.

Now, I feel for Christians today, many Christians today allow fear ... because they're even afraid to confront the status quo within Christianity. Like, I've read many blogs written by Christian people, and Mary's a favourite respondent of some blogs written by Christians, where the person challenges the status quo, for example the belief about God that God is a punishing, wrathful God. We know of this guy in the U.S.A. who challenges that with all the people around him, saying he doesn't believe that's true. But they're all quoting the Bible back at him. And he's going, "Well no, it doesn't matter what you say the Bible says, I can't feel God as like that. God's certainly not like that to me and so I can't believe that, whether the Bible says it or not." And he gets hammered by Christians who are just wanting to stay in this zone of wanting to believe the Bible is God's Word, whereas he's letting his light shine; he's not afraid. He's not even afraid of being judged by his own people as a result. He still feels like he's a Christian, he still has a belief in God. He has some erroneous beliefs about me but he is letting his light shine because he's confronting the general attitude and opinions of the Christians around him, and that's a beautiful thing to do; always a beautiful thing.

So that verse in Isaiah is inspirational.

7. How did the doctrine of the Trinity come about?

**Clare:** How did the doctrine of the Trinity come about?

Well, it is a very, very long answer I suppose but briefly, basically what happened is that the doctrine of the Trinity, or of a triune god, has existed for many millennia before I came to earth. Many religious concepts were constructed, both eastern philosophies and sort of Middle Eastern philosophies, that all revolved around this concept or idea that there was a triune godhead of some kind. Sometimes it was taken as a mother with two children; sometimes it was taken as a god with two additional gods; sometimes it was taken as a group of gods that all needed to work together to accomplish creation and so forth - in different philosophies. People can research this if they wish and I don't want to go into a long-winded discussion of it here; there are all sorts of philosophies that were around prior to my coming on earth.

We must understand that people's idea of God has never been very conclusive throughout history. Once you walk away from this God working with your heart thing that I'm describing, you also walk away from the possibility of understanding God from God. Then you start constructing ideas about God from your own ideas, and of course all of those are going to be flawed because God's not telling you what God is. Once we enter this relationship with God, once we enter this process of becoming at-one with God, we have the ability for God to tell us what God is. Now, unfortunately most Christians are very averse to the concept of God telling you what God is and instead they have a strong desire to tell God what God should be, unfortunately.

They also had deep misunderstandings of my relationship to God and this occurred shortly after my death; this began to occur. You see they knew that I had some kind of special relationship but they didn't understand what I was meaning when I was saying that I was at-one with God. On the other hand I also said that I was a son of God, and none of my disciples ever assumed that I was God. They all knew that I was just a man and I stated categorically that I was just a man, just the same as them, so none of the disciples or apostles ever believed that I was God. I often talked about being the Word of God, for the reason that we have previously discussed in another question, and that is because God had written His Word on my heart and as such I can become the Word of God through my example, through what I would say, what I would do, how I'd interact with people. I became what God would do in exactly the same condition and situation, so I called myself the Word of God. Now later people thought, "Well, what does that mean, the Word of God? How did he become the Word of God? Is there some special thing where he's now a part of God or something like that?" And then when I talked about becoming at-one with God of course there was additional confusion because they thought, "At-one with God, did that mean that I was saying I was God or did that mean that I was saying that I had this unique relationship with God that nobody else had, or what did that mean?" They didn't really understand what it meant because they hadn't had it personally and they hadn't heard the teachings personally and so they then made presumptions, a lot of assumptions about what I was teaching.

As time passed, from my death onward, all of these assumptions began to be made about the words that I had stated, all of which could have meant something completely different. But because the persons involved in making the assumptions had not got or developed a relationship with God, they didn't know what I meant. So they started to change things that they read. If they did get a scroll, for example, if they were ever lucky enough to get a scroll, or they were a copyist, they'd make little annotations that we now call glosses that end up in a glossary; they'd make little annotations, "Oh, this is what he meant." In other words, they were now imposing their ideas and concepts of what I meant upon the text. Now, because they did that, making these annotations, there were these growing feelings, these feelings growing of "What was Jesus saying about God and his relationship with God?" Because they themselves didn't have the same relationship with God that I had, that I was actually teaching, that they could have if they decided to develop it in the way that I described, they didn't have this relationship so they themselves could not understand my relationship with God, because if they had developed it in the same manner that I had they would then understand the relationship. Then they started to assume that that meant that I was God, somehow God incarnate on earth, and I did say that I've come to earth in order to bring God to light, which I hadn't done, but again that was all misinterpreted into ... "What does that mean? Does that mean he came as God? Does that mean he was a part of God?" So now these concepts, which were all present prior to Christianity anyway, about God being mysterious and nobody could understand God, all started to get imposed upon my teachings.

And so, over a period of the next three or four hundred years, by 325AD, the Nicene Creed, the Council of Nicaea, by that time there was already a very firm concept, because most of the men involved in this did not have God in their hearts. They were using their intellect to try to resolve this question. As a result of that they misinterpreted almost everything I said and they then constructed concepts of God which were very similar to some pagan concepts of God.

Interestingly they did the same with many other concepts that I taught. For example, the whole idea of Christmas and Easter has a very similar reason why they came up with those things. They were amalgamations of pagan teachings with Christianity, which were done many times for political expedience, not just for some kind of intellectual reasoning or arguments. They were often just done because, "Oh, there's a pagan over there who believes that we should celebrate December 25th for the sun god, Ra, and then there's the Christian over there who believes that Jesus was born and that's a good time to celebrate, and we don't know when Jesus was born so let's make it December 25th so everyone can be happy." (Chuckling) And they did this with so many teachings, in fact with a lot of my teachings about heaven they did the same thing. Instead of understanding that everything was a gradient depending on condition of love, they started polarising heaven into being heaven and hell. They did the same with teachings about the devil. I often referred to devils, which were people who had passed from earth who were in a very, very dark condition, who had very, very murderous and other terrible emotions in them, who were affecting people on earth. I often referred to devils but that was interpreted as 'the devil' and then unfortunately as a result of 'the devil' there's now this concept in Christianity that 'the devil' exists and that there's this person that God created.

**Clare:** This terrible dualistic, "There has to be a God because there's a devil." I mean, what a ridiculous concept.

Yeah, and there has to be a devil because there's a God is just as ridiculous. In fact even more so, because if you think that if God created all things, why would He ever create the potential for a devil to exist? But there's not much logic in many of these arguments and many of these arguments came from pre-Christian times. So there was this concept of the duality of the universe that existed way before Christian times. Many of these concepts were pagan concepts that were included into Christian concepts and then they tried to make my words, or make the words of other people who wrote in the Bible, fit the concept, which is an issue of integrity of interpretation really. As a result of that we had this growing problem.

The question you had asked was about the Trinity. With the Trinity there were many competing concerns so by the time of the Nicene Creed in 325AD, Constantine, who was a pagan at the time, decided ... See, what had happened, if we look at the history of it: only fourteen years prior, in 311AD, Christians were given a reprieve from being persecuted. In fact the emperor at the time, I think his name was Gallelaus or Galleus or something, he was staunchly opposed to Christianity, so much so that he persecuted them right up 'til near his death, but he realised at his death, or on his deathbed, he realised that the whole political concept of torturing and persecuting Christians was not working. So he actually gave Christians immunity from persecution, just before his death, and then two years later Constantine ratified that as a law. So it became law that Christianity was no longer an outlawed religion but now a religion that could be openly practiced.

Now of course many of the Christians at the time were in high amounts of rage about how they'd been previously treated. Many of them felt that this gave them licence to become violent towards the pagans as a result and of course you then had quite a lot of unrest from that point of time onwards. Now also, in amongst all of this scenario, were these competing viewpoints of power. See, the religious power was also the political power; it was becoming very much so, very similar in a lot of ways to how the Muslim world is today. Religious power is often political power, and so what would be happening is that you would have these people in positions who had also become Christian. Most of them became Christian, many of them out of expedience because many of their constituents had become Christian and many of them were now in danger, through elections, of losing their position without themselves converting to Christianity. So they converted to Christianity.

And then of course there were huge arguments about what version of Christianity they should follow and these arguments were causing huge amounts of defragmentation in the Roman Empire, so much so that Constantine, who was a pagan himself, became very, very worried about it. So he invited eighteen hundred bishops, who had power from all over the empire, to discuss the principles of Christianity, what the underlying basic teachings were. He didn't care what the teaching was as long as it was the same (laughter), as long as everyone agreed. So what he did was he invited everybody along.

Now as it turned out, only three hundred or so of these bishops finished up turning up but they were all the prominent ones, a lot of the prominent ones in positions of power. There were probably eighteen hundred people or so who turned up because every bishop was allowed to have two ministers and five supporting persons with them so there were quite a lot of people who came. There are historically many disagreements about how many were there but the number was around three hundred and twenty or so. Now they got together and they had a number of different disagreements. They had by this stage misunderstood almost all of my words about what it meant to become at-one with God, and misunderstood all of my words about my own relationship with God. As a result of that they interpreted all of these words, which were all verbal words that were later written, they then interpreted them in all different ways. In the end they decided to interpret them one way. There were lots of arguments, in fact there was a bit of violence that went on during these arguments (laughter) as well and the people who disagreed were excommunicated and exiled from the empire, so too bad if you had a different opinion.

In the end what was formulated in 325AD was the Doctrine of the Trinity which was further embellished in 385AD in another creed that occurred in Constantinople. These two particular creeds defined the Trinity Doctrine.

So that's sort of the history of the definition of the Trinity Doctrine, not necessarily the emotional things that caused the creation of the doctrine. The emotional things were created through this process of not understanding what I was saying because the person had not had a relationship with God. They were now trying to intellectually grasp what I'm saying without having this relationship, not therefore conceiving what I was talking about. As a result of this they changed all of the things I was stating and made it into something new which was something completely different to what I was stating at the time. It has actually caused a lot of damage in Christian religion and a lot of damage to the souls of Christians who have passed as a result, because their concept of God has been so distorted by the Trinity Doctrine that they cannot have a relationship with God because of the Doctrine. That's the sad thing. You see, the only way to have a relationship with God is to receive God's concept of God into your heart and if the Trinity Doctrine is not God's concept of God then you're not connecting to God anymore, and that's exactly what's happened with Christian faiths that have accepted the Trinity.

**Clare:** I know a lot of my friends, my Christian friends, many of them just totally by-pass the Trinity Doctrine; they just see it as being silly.

If you speak to the average lay person, the average Christian lay person does not really believe in the Trinity. They don't believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all one being. But the average minister or priest certainly does and they hold dearly onto this concept that was created pretty close to three hundred years after my death. Unfortunately they hold onto it so strongly that they threaten with excommunication any person that doesn't agree, and this is where we get a lot of control occurring in the priesthood. Unfortunately, in doing this it greatly distorts a person's relationship with God and their relationship with me because I am not God and I never have been and I never will be, and every time it's projected at me that I am it's almost a blasphemy towards God, because I'm not God. It also puts me in this untenable position really, that I really feel quite distressed about at times and have felt quite distressed about at times, in the sense that I'm being placed in a position that God should have, and I'm just a brother. I'm just another person and I don't deserve this position. Even though I was the first person to become at-one with God I still don't deserve the position of being put in place of God. And this is what's very disturbing about the teaching.

I think I should probably point out in this question that there are many other teachings in the Bible that have had a similar history, that have been an amalgamation of pagan types of concepts, misunderstandings of what has been said turned into a doctrine that has then been enforced by a creed that the church created for position of the abuse of power basically, in the end. It's so that the power is then put upon everybody who's had the same belief. Now, of course the church greatly benefits by everyone having the same belief, in that everyone doesn't question what the church then does, and the church then also has this ability to guide history as it has done for nearly two thousand years, as a result of enforcing a belief. This of course is for the sake of power, not for the sake of a relationship with God or discovering the Truth, and these underlying motivations have been present in many high religious leaders. Many of them have not cared at all for any Christian concept of love and in fact that's why things like the Spanish Inquisition and other types of atrocities have occurred throughout history at the hands of Christians, because they have not cared for the underlying principles of love.

8. For what purpose did the church fathers create the Christian Trinity doctrine?

**Clare:** For what purpose did the church fathers create the Christian Trinity doctrine?

Well, the best people to answer that question would be them (laughter) because, to be honest, I don't see any logical purpose (laughter) for the creation of a doctrine that alienates people from God and from themselves and from me and is also a complete misunderstanding of the operation of the Holy Spirit. I feel that historically it has created a lot of damage towards the faith and the relationship of Christians with God generally. However, they did have very many purposes for creating it.

The primary purpose was political expedience. There was a fragmenting empire and once the power base of an empire is fragmented then the empire itself fragments and if all of the power base disagree with each other then of course there's going to be fragmentation of an empire. Constantine was wise enough to see that, and so he decided he wanted to amalgamate the empire. Now he could see that the only way to amalgamate the empire was to have all of the important people in the empire believing the same things, or nearly the same things, and to excommunicate and exile any person who didn't agree. That was his primary concern, so from his perspective it was a political reason for making the choice and decision.

**Clare:** Is that what happened with the orthodox churches? There was a big split in the Christian orthodox from say, you know, the Orthodox Greek.

Well that happened much, much later. Yeah, I'm talking now about the events that happened in 300-400AD. The events you're referring to started occurring in 1200-1300AD and operated right the way through until 17-1800AD; that was an entirely new sort of fission or break-up that occurred in the system of Christian religion. What happened was that the power base of the Catholic religion, the Roman Catholic Church, was now being challenged by all these alternate concepts. Luther and others would challenge these concepts. Of course they were all violent challenges; eventually most of them had violence involved. Initially the Catholic Church treated each of these as a cult until such a time as the power became so strong from these particular religious movements, that the Catholic Church could no longer treat them as a cult and so then recognised them as an alternate religion, if you like.

However, interestingly enough, many of the primary doctrines of Christianity were all formulated way back a thousand years earlier. In fact, for this reason, if you look at the statement of the Lutherans about the Trinity compared to that of the Catholics about Trinity, you'll find it's almost identical in terms of the way they believe the Trinity to be. We're talking here about God's Nature. One of the primary things we need to understand if we're going to have a relationship with God, is God's Nature, and they're all defining God's Nature in error based on the counsel which was given for political expedience in 325AD.

If you examine the history of it all, which is very, very different from trying to justify the Trinity through the Bible, you can see that already by 300AD there was a very firm concept that the Trinity was true. Now of course that meant that all of these glosses that were included in the sub-texts of all the marginal statements that were made in different manuscripts, now started to get incorporated into the texts. This was of course very damaging, because this now meant that the Bible itself started to mirror the inaccurate doctrine rather than just stating what it actually stated.

And of course there were many, many hundreds of copies made before the text we currently have available, and so of course there was also a great amount of distortion that was available to the copiests who had their own concepts about what it should have meant in comparison to what actually happened. Bear in mind of course that almost all the texts in the Bible were written many years after my death. They were all already the recounting of the memories of the people involved. Now, one thing you and I both know is that even right now, I can make a statement today, and tomorrow, even while I'm still alive, I can be quoted completely out of context, and I could see this occurring quite rapidly in the first century. In fact, again it's recorded how I said in the book of Matthew, that many would come along and distort my teachings completely, and many would believe that they were practicing the teachings that I gave when they were obviously not. And I said, in fact the way the Bible says it now, I'm meant to have said, "Get away from me you workers of lawlessness," which is not actually what I said but (laughter) this is the extension of the punishing god sort of thing that gets imposed upon the belief as well.

But I did say that there would be gross distortions of my words because already when I was alive there was gross distortion of my words. The Pharisees were constantly distorting my words every single day and many of my own disciples were constantly distorting my words for their own ends because they wanted me to mean 'that' rather than 'that,' because that meant that they'd have to change. So even while I was alive in the first century there were gross distortions of what I said. Very few people came up and asked me what I meant and that happens frequently today, where I say something; maybe it's unclear to some people what I've said and so they come up after and ask me and I can give them clarification. Many people don't hear those clarifications and so they assume, they make assumptions. This is a common human frailty, and it's something that happened way back then as well. As a result of that we have all these assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions upon distortions upon Chinese whispers (laughter) as the saying goes, and we end up with a whole mishmash of information, some of which is true. Some of the truth has been retained but other parts of it is grossly distorted and manipulated for the sake of people who want to maintain power as well.

The whole reason for the Trinity doctrine was all about power. It was all about maintaining power in the fragmenting Roman Empire. Eventually, as you know, the Roman emperor became the pope. In other words, there was an amalgamation of religion and politics into one position and this amalgamation was of course, historically, before my coming, also present. Most people who were in politics were also high members of the religious faith, otherwise they would never have gotten voted into politics or been able to sustain their position in politics. This has always been the case, where politics and religion often has a very blurred line between the two. Many of the religious leaders historically were also the politicians, very similar to how it is in the Muslim world today in fact.

So power I feel, in the end, was the primary motivation for the adoption of the Trinity doctrine. Unfortunately it could have been anything they adopted; it just happened to be that particular doctrine.

9. Where was the Church hierarchy mistaken with the Trinity doctrine?

**Clare:** Where was the Church hierarchy mistaken with the Trinity doctrine?

Well I thought the best thing to do here would be perhaps to list the creeds and to just make statements about each statement they made and show you where they were at in their thinking.

So if we look at the First Council, I've got some things written down on the FAQ outline that anybody who listens to this FAQ can have a look at in the FAQ ( _see_ Appendix). I've got a table where on one side I've got the First Council of Nicaea, which is 325AD, and on the other side of the table I've got the First Council of Constantinople which happened in 381AD. What I'm doing is comparing the two statements of the Trinity in those particular statements. Now, they are quite different in parts of these statements so we need to analyse what part of it is true and what part of it isn't, so let's look at the statements one by one. I've broken these statements into lines so we can allocate a number to them and then we can work out which part's true and which part isn't.

So, the First Council if Nicaea in 325AD said, "We believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible." The First Council of Constantinople in 381AD said, "We believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible." Both statements are completely true. God is one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. I have no problem with that first statement at all.

Statement number two for the Nicaea Council was, "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten of the Father, the only begotten, that is, the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father" - completely false. This is the Constantinople Council - "And in one Lord Jesus Christ" - I'm not anybody's lord by the way - "and the only begotten son of God" - which I am not - "begotten of the Father before all worlds" - which I'm not - "light of light" - which I'm not - "very God of very God" \- which I'm not - "begotten not made" - but I am made, not begotten \- "being of one substance with the Father." I am not of one substance with the Father except the substance of Divine Love, so most of that is also incorrect. So the concept of myself was the problem. You see, their concept of God was correct but their concept of me as God's son is where the distortion occurred. That was the thing that was incorrect, and that was the thing that they couldn't understand because of what I said. Because they couldn't understand the statements I made they then came up with these concepts that were incorrect. So, statement number two of both Councils was incorrect, completely incorrect.

Statement number three: "By whom..." - in other words Jesus - "By whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth." And the Council of Constantinople said "By whom all things were made." Completely incorrect. I did not make all things. However, here they were taking some statements that I made from the first century, again out of context. Because I had re-established, through my connection with God, the ability for all humanity to re-establish a connection with God, in this way I became what I sometimes referred to myself as "the resurrection and the life." Now I wasn't talking about the resurrection of a physical body. I was talking about the resurrection of the soul's potentiality to receive Divine Love which Adam and Eve, the first human couple, Amon and Aman, lost. When Amon and Aman lost the right, if you like, to receive the gift of Divine Love, they died, not physically, but in the soul potentiality of receiving Divine Love.

In that moment I, by my coming, resurrected this opportunity because I found the Way that God has now allowed, to re-establish this connection with God. I resurrected the opportunity. In this regard all souls on this planet and in the spirit world now had the ability to be re-created in the sense that they could be born again. They could be a different creature through this recreation. So I definitely came to earth for that purpose.

**Clare:** Now could you tell me, when did this happen? Because I'm fully hearing what you're saying here.

It happened as soon as I became at-one with God, and this happened just before I was baptised by John. I realised from the very early time in my life in the first century that God is now re-offering this Love, and in fact the way I felt it was that God had always offered this Love, there was just no-one on earth who wanted to accept it. All of a sudden I had this desire to accept it, so this was enabling of my own passion and desire. I recognised I wanted to accept it and then I realised that this was the role of the messiah.

The role of the messiah was not to be a king or ruler or leader over the world, it was to lead people back to God, to lead people back to this condition of at-onement with God that God had first offered Amon and Aman, Adam and Eve, but they had rejected it. As a result of their rejecting it, their soul died to the potentiality of receiving it. As a result of that, all of humanity since had died, in the sense of the potential of receiving Love. Once I had this knowledge I then realised that I could regain this as a soul potentiality, because God was offering it. I could regain it through this process with God and once I regained it, I could show other people, through my example, how to regain it. In that way the entire world of mankind was reborn through me, not because of anything special I did, aside from becoming at-one with God and demonstrating how they too could become at-one with God. So, again, words of mine were misapplied and then turned into a doctrine which is in point number three of both Councils. So that is false too. "By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth," is false in the way the average Christian on the planet currently understands it.

Then four, it says "Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man." That's completely true, actually. The way I see the creation of my own soul, in the way I see the creation of everyone's soul, is that God's created the soul of each individual for a unique purpose that is necessary for every other person in this universe to understand God. You have an aspect or quality of God that not a single other person on this universe has, inside of your soul, and if I get to know you and get to know that pure aspect of you, I'll get to see another quality of God.

Now, I realised that the quality that God placed inside of me was this quality of wanting to assist in the redemption of man. It was the desire for God, no matter what everyone else around me wanted. That was the thing implanted inside of me that was unique. So when I came to earth, not that I had a prehuman existence as it implies, but I came to earth... Like, I did have a prehuman existence but not in a conscious manner. This implies it was conscious, but it wasn't. But I did come to earth, God did send me to earth, or send this soul, Mary and myself, to earth, for the purpose of helping man work out their salvation. That was the purpose of coming. I recognised that purpose inside of myself and I realised that that was the purpose of the messiah, not in the way that Christians now see it, of course.

Now, the Constantinople Council says "Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary and was made man." This is completely inaccurate. There was no virgin Mary, my mother, because she had sex with my father before I was born. She has told me such a thing, and there was no incarnation by the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost did not plant a seed. In fact it's implied here that the Holy Ghost is a person and of course it's not a person either. So, again, false.

Let's look at five. It says "He suffered and on the third day he rose again and ascended to heaven." Well I did suffer, that is true; I did have some suffering, not as much as many other people on the planet have though. And I didn't rise on the third day. The reality is I appeared to people on the third day, after being raised the instant I died.

So the reality is, once I died my physical body was ended, my spirit body was still alive, I passed straight away into the spirit state and then I did some things in the spirit world. One of the things I did was I went to my home that I'd created in the 10th dimension, which is the 3rd celestial sphere, which is the highest place I could go to at that time. I went to my home and I checked it out because it was the first time I had had the opportunity to do such a thing. I also went to the hells of the spirit world and shared the Divine Truth with them. In fact the book of Peter mentions that I've done this, that I went to the hells to share the Divine Truth with people in un-Godly places. The reason why Peter said that was that I had told him I'd done that when I appeared to him after the third day of being resurrected, as it is called. So, I did suffer but I was not resurrected on the third day. I ascended to heaven as soon as I died and I reappeared on the third day to people on earth. There are parts of that statement that are true and parts that are false.

If we look at the Constantinople Council statement it says "He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate." Now, this is completely incorrect. I was not crucified for anyone. My death did not accomplish anything. You could become at-one with God before I died. You could have become at-one with God, if you were there in the first century, before I died. My death wouldn't help you become at-one with God. So it's completely false that it was for "us." My crucifixion wasn't for anybody aside from a group of angry, angry members of the Sanhedrin who wanted me gone. That was the primary reason why I was killed.

"And he suffered," which is true, "and was buried" and that is true, "and the third day he rose again." That is not true; on the third day I reappeared to people on earth. According to the scriptures it says, "And ascended into heaven." I ascended into heaven as soon as I died, "and sits on the right hand of the Father." Well, if the right hand of the Father is a position of favour then I sit on the right hand of the Father even right now. (Chuckling) But if the right hand of the Father means in terms of ruling over anybody, then no, that's not what is meant by "sitting on the right hand of the Father."

Let's look at the next statement. It says, "From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead," - completely incorrect; I'm never going to judge anybody. God's Laws judge every single person and there's no need for me to set myself up as a judge while God's Laws do it. So, I would never be a judge.

The 381AD Council says, "From thence he shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end." Now, I do believe the kingdom that I've established in the Celestial kingdom will have no end. I'm suspicious though, to a degree, about that because I believe what will happen is that everyone in that kingdom will continue to progress. That means that new kingdoms will be established and so my feelings at this point in time are that the Celestial kingdom may in the future come to have an end because even greater kingdoms may be established through people receiving more and more Divine Love. So, I don't feel that that's something that we can guarantee for certain.

Then of course the First Council of Nicaea says, "and in the Holy Ghost," but that's all it says about the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say much else. Now there is a Holy Spirit; however the implication of the Council was that the Holy Spirit was a part of God. The Holy Spirit is an energy of God but it is not an entity of God, which is very, very different. It's like you saying, for example, that your arm is a part of you. You wouldn't call your arm 'you' so you would never call the Holy Spirit God because it is only a part of God; it is an energy of God in fact. Your arm is an energetic thing connected to your will, it is not you. I could not say your arm is you; I couldn't look at your hand and go, "That's you." You are your complete being. God is the complete being.

**Clare:** I was talking to this Jewish leader once - he wasn't a leader, he was just a teacher - and he referred to the Holy Spirit as God's loving kindness.

Yeah, see that is not the Holy Spirit. I was the first person to coin the term Holy Spirit so I'm probably best versed to enhance on what I meant by the Holy Spirit. (Laughter) Now, the reason why I coined the term "Holy Spirit" was this: I recognised that God had many varieties of energies and forces, and in fact the more developed I became the more I recognised the different types of energies and forces that God has.

Now some of these energies were creative in their nature. In other words they enforced and created new things, caused new things to come into being. Some of them were maintaining in nature. In other words they maintained the order of the universe. Some of them were structures of the universe; in other words the universe as it exists couldn't exist without there being an underlying Law-based structure that guides how the universe exists, and I understood that one of God's energies maintained the Laws of the universe.

But once I started connecting to Divine Love I realised that God had one special energy that was far and above more powerful and also more important to humanity than any other energy. It was an energy that made the human holy. It was the energy that made the human perfect, and the way that it made the human perfect was: if you can connect to this energy, Divine Love could flow through the connection and transform the human soul. So what I realised was that the Holy Spirit, what I coined the term as Holy Spirit and why I likened it was, it was a force of God that I could connect to as long as I maintained a personal state of truth. I could connect to this conduit, like a pipe, like a water pipe, and the Love from God could flow into me as a result of my connection to this pipe.

The Holy Spirit isn't the pipe; it is the energy by which God transmits Love into the human soul. It is a unique energy in that only the human soul can connect to this energy and it caused the human soul to grow to the point of becoming holy, in other words perfect. That's why I used the term Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately, people then gave the Holy Spirit an entity and a role in itself, beyond that which I gave it, and in fact there is a general Christian belief that every time the word 'spirit' is used in the New Testament, it's referring to the Holy Spirit and this is actually an incorrect assumption as well, because there are many spirits, and we can discuss that in another question. The reality is that the Holy Spirit has this unique thing, this unique quality of being able to bring God's Love into the human soul and transform it. That's its uniqueness and it's the only energy of God that allows Love to flow through it. It's the only one that I have discovered at this point that allows Love to flow through it. There's love in all the other energies as a persistent quality or substance but this is the only one that allowed Love to flow through a connection to the human, in other words, that allowed the human soul to change. This is what I referred to as the New Birth. Once it was changed enough it was like the human was a new creature; the human was now Divine in nature. I recognised through this experience that my actual soul was transforming, physically transforming, through this connection, and that was the role of the Holy Spirit.

So the misunderstanding then grew from all of this. Then they wanted to make the Holy Spirit God, and in fact the Constantinople Council even stated a lot more false teachings about the Holy Spirit. They said, "And in the Holy Ghost, the lord and giver of life," so now they're assuming that the Holy Spirit is the creative spirit. They're now mixing up the different energies of God. It is the giver of life in the sense that it's the giver of life to the human soul, transforming it into the Divine. Without the Holy Spirit the human soul can never become Divine, so it is the giver of life in that way, and that's why I referred to it as, "the giver of life."

"... Who proceedeth from the Father." Well, the Holy Spirit isn't a 'who,' it's a 'what.' (Laughter) It's not an entity; it's an energy. "Who, with the Father and Son together is worshipped," - now I cannot agree with that. It's like saying that every time I talk to you, instead of talking to you I talk to your arm. (Laughter) Why would I choose to do that when I can talk to the whole of you?

This is what it's like when people refer to the Holy Spirit as God, because it's like, you can't talk to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not talk; it does not converse; it is an energy through which something from God flows, and these are misunderstandings that were created. It can transform you, the connection with the Holy Spirit, but it's not the Holy Spirit itself that transforms you. It's the Love that flows through it that transforms you. Also, it can only be maintained through a condition of truth, but that is a condition and not a "who." Again, it's an energy and not a person.

So all of these statements about the Holy Spirit being a person ... and it even indicates in this Council that the Holy Spirit is responsible for the resurrection of the dead. This is completely false, because the resurrection of the dead is automatic. God created a spirit body and a physical body and Paul said, in fact, "Just as there is a physical body so there is a spirit one." In fact, the spirit one is present with us even on earth and as soon as we die the physical body disconnects and we're now in our spirit body. It's a natural progression of all humanity; it's not the result of the Holy Spirit. It's the result of other Laws of God that have been created, other attributes and characteristics of the Laws of the nature of the universe that God created that cause this to occur. So, if you look at those statements you can see quite categorically that there are some statements that are very true, other statements that are a mixture of truth and error, and other statements that are completely false.

In order to refute others, the First Council of Nicaea also said, "But those who say, 'There was a time when he was not,' and 'He was not before he was made,' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance or essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'The Son of God is changeable or alterable,' they are condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." The reality is that every single one of those statements is false. Firstly, it's impossible for a person to be condemned for their belief; they are condemned for their lack of love. Secondly, there was a time when I was not - because there was a time when God existed and no-one else existed and that included me. There was a time before I was made. I was made out of energies from God, not out of nothing; I am also not of another substance than anybody else. I am not of God's substance; I am of the same substance as every other person that has been created. I am completely changeable, because God's Love would never have transformed me if I wasn't changeable, and I am completely alterable and I hope to alter my life every single moment from now on. (Laughter) I hope to continue to grow towards God, which means of course that I would always change and always grow and always be alterable. So these are all false doctrines that are all made, again, from assumptions from different verbal statements that were later included in the Bible; they were all misrepresentations of my actual words. So that's a summary of how it all came into existence. It is interesting, isn't it, that the very pinnacle of the Christian faith, the actual concept of God, is itself flawed.

This is a very sad thing because if our concept of God is flawed then there's a high likelihood we're not connecting to God when we think we are; this is the danger of a flawed concept with God. You see, as we grow towards God we will gain more and more of God's concept of God and not our own concept of God. The trouble with the Trinity doctrine is that it is a manmade concept of God and therefore it will, if continued to be believed, prevent relationship with God rather than sustaining it.

That's the sad thing about the Trinity Doctrine. I feel for Christians who believe it, and believe it with their whole heart. I understand the emotions that are impacted upon that. Unfortunately though, there is also a bit of a love of the mystery. You see, there is this concept in much religious faith on the planet that mystery is essential to faith and I do not agree with that at all. I have never agreed with that, ever. I believe that faith comes from reality. It's like, you asked me earlier - and people can refer to a different FAQ on this matter - you asked me earlier how the early Christians had faith, and I said, "Because they had experienced the reality of my continued existence." That's how they had faith. Their faith wasn't some imagined state that they thought they could obtain, but rather they had proven to them through this personal experience that they would continue to live. You see, that is the basis of faith. If something is mysterious then it's highly unlikely it comes from God. It usually comes from the desires of men to maintain mystery. What I find and what I know about God is that God wants me to know everything, but God also knows that God created a universe where I cannot know everything because the universe is infinite and I'm finite. Now this is a very thing that God has done and in fact in the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible it says this: "God has placed inside of men's hearts time indefinite," has placed the feeling of forever inside of our hearts. The reason why He's placed it is that He knows that we can search everything God as done for the rest of our existence and still not discover everything God has done. So there's the mystery. The mystery is not the fact that God wants everything to be mysterious but rather that God wants us to discover everything God has done, but God has made so many things to discover, that we'll be spending the rest of our existence discovering them.

That is a truth that is contained in the Bible, and I feel strongly that this is what we need to understand about the Word of God being written on our heart; we need to understand that this is going to be an ever-changing and growing position if we're really connecting with God. We're not going to be having one fixed and firm viewpoint about anything in our future existence. We are going to know only the things we have discovered for certain.

The first century Christians knew for certain that their life continued after their death because I had demonstrated it personally to them. That's how they knew for certain, so they had an incredible faith as a result of that. They knew they could trust that because they'd seen it happen for me. Now, if I was God, there would be no such proof, if you think about it, because really I'm not a man, and if I'm not a man who has died and then resurrected then there is no such proof of the resurrection.

Even the apostle Paul, when he spoke about me dying and being resurrected as proof of the resurrection, if I was God there would be no such proof because surely, for God, it would be different than for man. So, there is a lot of illogical doctrine and if you analyse it with a completely open mind you can see that a lot of Christian doctrine doesn't make much sense and there must be another explanation of these Bible verses, and that is the case in most cases.

**Clare:** Oh, brilliant!

No worries. So, I think that completes our discussion about Trinity. We'll close the door on Trinity for the moment. We will obviously talk more perhaps about some Bible verses that seemed to imply the Trinity, and how they came to be as a result, and so forth. That can be a completely different discussion because it can be a long-winded discussion based on a lot of different Bible verses and many people who hear this discussion may not want to listen to that. We'll answer those questions in a different discussion perhaps, about what the Bible actually says about the Trinity.

10. Is the practice of speaking in tongues beneficial to connecting with God?

**Clare:** Is the practice of speaking in tongues beneficial to connecting with God?

Well, before we can really answer that question we need to look at all of these things that are called the 'gifts of the spirit,' because I feel that these gifts such as prophecy, speaking in tongues and other types of gifts, a lot of Christians believe that they are the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and they're not the gifts of the Holy Spirit, so what we need to do is define what is a gift of the Holy Spirit compared to what is a gift of the spirit, and then we'll be able to look at the specific gifts of the spirit and speaking in tongues.

With the gift of the Holy Spirit: the Holy Spirit is a conduit, like a pipe, an energy of God that allows God to connect to the human and pass Love from God's Soul into the human soul. That is its only purpose. It has no other purpose. It doesn't have a voice. It doesn't have any other purpose. It doesn't control what a person thinks; it's not a thing that gives Truth. It's not a thing that provides any other mechanism from God aside from the Divine Love flowing through it. The reason why I called it the Holy Spirit was that it's the Spirit that enabled the person to become Holy; it's the only Spirit of God in fact, that I've discovered, that allows the Divine Love of God to flow into the human soul. For that reason I felt that it was the most holy of all of God's Spirits. When I refer to God's Spirits I'm referring to the active forces that come from God, all of the energies, if you like, that come from God.

When we talk about a 'gift of the spirit' we are not talking about the gift that the Holy Spirit brings. Speaking in tongues is not a gift of the Holy Spirit. The only gift that the Holy Spirit brings to the human soul is the gift of Divine Love. All other gifts come from other things, so that's the first thing we must understand.

The second thing we need to understand is that when the Bible refers to the word 'spirit' it can be referring to many different things. It can be referring to a spirit person, for example. It can be referring to a type of emotion, a different energy or an emotion that a person has, - like you could say 'the spirit of violence', the 'spirit of happiness.' These are all emotional feelings that we feel sort of like a spirit. In fact, the way they transmit is that they have an energy and a colour that goes between one soul and another soul. They are an actual energetic transmission of the emotion. If I'm angry with you, for example, you will feel it inside of yourself because there will be a transmission of a very reddish, a very bright reddy-black feeling coming out of me into you, and it's actually something that a spirit can see. A person in the spirit world can see this spirit or energy that comes out of my soul and into yours, so, you could say that that's a spirit.

Then you could also say that there are things that are of the spirit body. As you are now aware, we have a physical body and a spirit body and in fact Paul said that, that we have a physical body as well as a spirit one. Now, you could say that the 'gifts of the spirit' are all related to the spirit body, so the gift of speaking in tongues is related to the spirit body of the person in some way.

How it's related is through a process. If we look at how the gift is used, that is one part of the question and then the other part of the question is: what is the gift in itself? Now the gift of speaking in tongues is the ability to speak in other languages transmitting Divine Truth, but to be more specific, it occurs even though the speaker does not know the language. In other words, it gives me the ability to speak in another language without me as the speaker knowing the language.

**Clare:** And to clarify, the spirit comes from my own spirit?

Well this is the question isn't it? 'Because it's potentially from a spirit in the spirit world working through the energy of your own spirit body, transmitting information to your mind and then you have clarity to speak it to somebody else. If we look at how 'speaking in tongues' in the Bible was first used we can identify what the issues with speaking in tongues is all about. If you look in Acts chapter 2, verses 5 and 6 - and I'm reading from the New International Version here - it says, "Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound a crowd came together in bewilderment because each one heard them speaking in his own language." This was the first account in the Bible of speaking in tongues.

Peter and a number of other people at this point in time, this is after Pentecost, became infused with 'spirit' and they had the ability to speak in tongues. Now the Holy Spirit connected to them at Pentecost because they became into a condition of truth and love. They also had a desire to receive Divine Love, so the Holy Spirit connected with them and Divine Love flowed into their souls. Now the Divine Love in their souls caused a change in their soul which then impacted upon their spirit body, which meant that their spirit body could now do things that it couldn't do before. Peter could never speak in tongues before, and many of the others who are listed here could never speak in tongues before. This is the first occasion where they could speak in tongues. The purpose of speaking in tongues was not to just provide a heap of gibberish to people who could not understand; it was to provide Divine Truth to the people who could hear it, in their own language. That was its purpose. It had a direct loving purpose.

Now, this is the case with each gift. Each gift that we have, whether it's prophecy or speaking in tongues or other gifts like that, they can be used for a loving purpose or an unloving purpose. It just depends on which way our soul decision takes us; our desire takes us, as to whether we will have a loving purpose or an unloving purpose in the dissemination of the gift. Now in this case, on the first occasion of speaking in tongues, it was obviously a loving purpose. Almost 3,000 people from all different walks of life and different countries - they were all Jews but they had come from different countries for the Passover celebration - all spoke different languages and they heard Peter speaking in their own language. That was the power; they were hearing the Divine Truth being spoken in their own language and that's what caused a huge attraction of course to the Truth and caused them to listen. Many of them, as it says, decided to follow it as a result of them hearing the Truth in their own language.

That's a case of a gift of the spirit body being used in a positive direction. Now, Peter didn't know the language so the language had to come from somewhere, and it came from spirits in the spirit world who could speak the languages of these people but who also knew Divine Truth. These spirits in the spirit world who could speak Divine Truth could now connect to Peter because he had received the Holy Spirit and received the Divine Love through the Holy Spirit; his soul was transformed to the point where he could now hear other spirits and he could now transmit information from other spirits to people. As a result they started talking to him and they started using his body to transmit the information in another language even though Peter himself did not know the language, because he could only speak Hebrew and Aramaic.

So that was the process of speaking in tongues. Now, it can also be used in a terrible way, a very unloving way. If we look at Paul's words now, if we look at 1st Corinthians 14, Paul spoke about the unloving ways in which you can use 'speaking in tongues.' He says, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy." Now the gift of prophecy is different to the gift of tongues in the sense that the gift of prophecy is still a spirit speaking to the person; it's not the Holy Spirit - see, most Christians believe it's the Holy Spirit - it is not, because the Holy Spirit doesn't speak and the Holy Spirit doesn't give prophecy. The only purpose of the Holy Spirit is to be a conduit for Divine Love to flow into the soul. That's its purpose; that's its only purpose. It does not have a voice, it is not an entity and it does not give anything else to the soul.

When he talks about the gift of prophecy, the gift of prophecy is the same gift of prophecy that Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, all of these ones had, which is the gift of being able to hear what a spirit says and say it in your own language to a group of people who are hearing and therefore up-build the people who are hearing, and yourself.

So it's spirits, and they can be dark spirits or they could be bright spirits, transmitting information through a person and that person then transmits the information to a group of people who listen to it. That's the gift of prophecy. Paul said that he desires that people prophesy instead of speak in tongues, and the reason is that speaking in tongues is often not in the language of the people who are listening, whereas prophesying was always in the language of the people that were hearing and therefore it could be beneficial.

He says, "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God," and I would even dispute that particular claim. "Indeed, no-one understands him. He utters mysteries with his spirit." Now, if you think about it, if God is a God of Love and God is trying to give us Truth, would God try to create mystery? Obviously not. If mystery is being created then it is not coming from God, nor is it coming from the Holy Spirit. It is coming from a spirit in the spirit world, a person, who's transmitting the information. Paul's saying that often these people were speaking in tongues and basically all they were doing was showing off. It was having no effect on the hearer because the hearer could not understand and it was even having very little effect on the person because they couldn't even understand what they were saying. They just had this feeling with a spirit and said a whole heap of things as a result.

He said, "But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself but he who prophesies edifies the Church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues unless he interprets so that the Church may be edified." What he's basically saying here is a basic understanding of the rules of mediumship or channelling, and I know most Christians don't like those terms very much because of the different prohibitions of such in the Old Testament parts of the Bible, but if they think about it carefully I spoke to spirits when I was on earth in the first century. There are records of me speaking to evil spirits and speaking to good spirits. In the Transfiguration I spoke to good spirits; with regard to expelling demons I spoke to evil spirits. Now, if I spoke to spirits there should be no prohibition to your speaking to one, and if that's the case that's what most of the people understood; all the Christians understood this.

The Christians understood that they could speak to spirits because it was something that I showed them that they could do. They often encouraged the speaking to spirits but, unfortunately, often they didn't know what kind of spirit they were speaking to. This is why one of the other apostles said that you've got to try the spirits to see which one you're speaking to. In other words, you've got to get to know them a bit and understand where they're coming from and understand their background, and understand their feelings before you actually know whether they're speaking the Truth or not.

Now, many people who speak in tongues are just open conduits for spirits who only want to speak in their own tongue to somebody on earth. It has no benefit to any of their audience; it has no benefit to themselves. In fact it can often be degrading to themselves because the spirit might not be in a good condition. Now the problem with that kind of speaking in tongues is that it doesn't help any listener. It doesn't help the person who's doing it, and it doesn't help the spirit because the spirit and the person who's doing it are just in their own addictions with each other trying to get glory that has no purpose.

What Paul was saying is that the speaking in tongues and prophesying that is beneficial is the speaking in tongues and prophesying that people can understand. You have to be able to understand it before it's going to benefit you. He was saying that there is no problem having these gifts of the spirit or these gifts of speaking in tongues or prophesying which are all about mediumship abilities, channelling spirits; they are all possible, and many people in Pentecostal religious churches engage them. There's nothing wrong with engaging them, with the exception of when they're engaged out of harmony with love. If they're engaged out of harmony with love they will damage everybody, including the person doing it. If they're engaged in harmony with love then they can benefit everybody, including the person doing it, and that should be the underlying principle of speaking in tongues.

The real question in terms of what a Christian should focus on: a Christian should focus on what Paul said in 1st Corinthians 13. This is what he said there. He said, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but I do not have love I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." What's he saying there? He's saying that if I have these gifts of the spirit, which by the way anyone can have - we don't need to have any special development of love to have them and that's what Paul's implying - you can actually have the gift without having any love at all in you. If you have the gift without having any love in you it's like, you might as well just be banging something, making a lot of racket, because it has no benefit whatsoever on the rest of the world. What Paul focused on in 1st Corinthians 13 was: you must develop in love if you're truly going to have any spiritual development.

In answer to your question about developing speaking in tongues in order to connect to God or connect to the Holy Spirit, my suggestion is this: speaking in tongues does not connect you with the Holy Spirit, because it is not the Holy Spirit that you're connecting to when you speak in tongues; it is a spirit and your own spirit body. In addition to that, speaking in tongues does not automatically mean you are more loving and, as Paul correctly said, developing in love should be the focus of the Christian, not developing other things. Now, as a subsequent development of love you may be able to speak in tongues and you may be able to prophesy, but if you focus on developing those gifts without developing love, you may as well just be a clashing cymbal as Paul said. It is pointless to do such a thing.

So, my feeling in terms of answer to this question for you is: I feel that Christians need to focus more on developing their gift of love, their love of God, their love of their neighbour, all of those things they must focus on developing. We might talk about that more in terms of daily practice in another question, but if they focus on developing the so-called gifts of the spirit without developing love, it is completely pointless to their own soul and completely pointless to the souls of the people who are listening.

These Pentecostal churches where people flail around on the ground speaking gibberish that nobody else can translate or understand, it is totally pointless, not only pointless but it is very selfish because it is imposing gibberish upon a congregation that deserves better than gibberish. It deserves to have more information about connection with God, not just gibberish coming from a spirit and a person on earth who's influenced by a spirit who's not in a condition of love.

What I recommended to people in the first century is the same thing I recommend now and that is that if you make sure that your development in love is your primary focus, these other gifts will come to you, but you'll also know how to use them lovingly. If you focus on developing the gifts, as many New Age people do and some Christians do, focus on developing the gifts without developing in love, then you will be able to use the gift but you won't ever be loving. There's no point to that because the light and brightness of your soul is completely dependent on the love. It's not dependent on the gifts. I've seen very, very dark souls having the gift of tongues and very dark souls having the gift of prophesying but having no love inside of themselves, and when they pass into the spirit world they often pass with no love inside of themselves and so therefore they pass into a hellish condition and they have a very harsh surrounding environment as a result. They believe themselves to be developed because they were speaking in tongues, they believed they were developed because they were prophesying, but true development only comes from development in love. I feel that that's the main principle that we need to understand with all of the development that we could make in the gifts of the spirit.

**Clare:** And that would be for other people, people who see, I don't know, energies or see auras, etcetera.

Exactly the same principle applies. Just because you can see an aura or an energy it does not mean that you are developed in love. In fact I've seen many people who can see auras and energies who are very dark and not developed in love at all. So again, the same thing applies. Developing in love is the only real spiritual development that a person can make. Now, there are two types of love. One type is the love that you express from within yourself to another, which I call the natural love that exists within the human soul, and then there's this other type of love that we have the capacity to receive through the Holy Spirit, which is the Divine Love of God that can enter our soul and transform us. My suggestion to people is to choose the second way of development, but both ways of development will grow your soul. The second way of development through connecting through the Holy Spirit with God's Love, that will grow the soul infinitely, whereas there will be a limitation of your growth if you connect in natural love. I implied that in many of my illustrations in the first century as well, that there were two different types of ways you could develop your love.

I just feel that we need to be careful that we don't get hung up on all of these fancy things that seem exciting at the time, and forget the excitement of developing in love, which is the real thing that's exciting. You think about the earth that we have now: if all of us on the earth developed in love it wouldn't matter what gifts or lack of gifts any of us had, we'd all treat each other more lovingly. You imagine how the world would be then in comparison to how it is now. But if we can all speak in tongues but don't have any love, how does that change the world? We'd all be speaking gibberish half the time and dark spirits would be saying their things through us and all that, which often does happen, and it would all be very negative because there's no love involved. That's the damaging part of it all. I also feel that for Christians in particular, we need to not confuse the gifts of the spirit with the Holy Spirit. We need to be very, very careful that we do not confuse these two things.

**Clare:** That's a wonderful distinction. I had never realised that before.

Yeah, because it's that confusion that causes people then to misrepresent the Holy Spirit and what it does. You see, they then start viewing the Holy Spirit as a person because they can hear a voice, not realising they are hearing a voice but it's not the Holy Spirit. It's a spirit talking to them claiming to be the Holy Spirit, and that's not good, if you think about it. It's not good for a spirit claiming to be the Holy Spirit of God when it's not the Holy Spirit of God, it's just a spirit who's lived on earth in the past. That's a false claim. A spirit who claims that, who's speaking to us in a voice, is lying to us and we'd be able to know straight away if we know that the Holy Spirit is not a voice, it is not going to be able to speak to us. It is an energy of God that transmits Love to us, and when we know that that's the role of the Holy Spirit, then we will of course be very mistrustful of any spirit coming along and saying, "I'm the Holy Spirit, listen to me."

I see many Christians saying they're talking to the Holy Spirit when they're just talking to a first sphere, quite dark, Christian spirit who's claiming to be the Holy Spirit in order to transmit a whole heap of information to the person that is false and it's very, very damaging to the person. It's also quite damaging to the spirit. So my suggestion is you need to have a very clear idea what the Holy Spirit is and once you have that clear idea you will realise that these gifts of the spirit are completely separate to the Holy Spirit; then you will be much more careful in the way you use these gifts of the spirit. You won't make presumptions or assumptions that you're currently making about these gifts. You won't assume that just because you're hearing a voice that's talking about some form of Christianity, it's coming from God. You won't be making that assumption anymore because you know that it could be just a spirit claiming to be God or a spirit claiming to be the Holy Spirit talking to you. Many spirits do this just in order to mislead people on earth, and many Christians are being misled by very dark spirits as a result of that. This is why sometimes you hear some Christian people on earth saying, "I was told to go and kill that person. The Holy Spirit told me." Well, it's certainly not the Holy Spirit that told you to do that. It was a spirit who is very dark who you've believed your whole life is the Holy Spirit but it's not, and it has a voice that you can hear and you're just acting upon that voice; that's very, very damaging. There have been people historically that have done things according to the 'Holy Spirit', or what the 'Holy Spirit' has told them, which have been completely out of line with love, which is an indication that it wasn't the Holy Spirit that they were connecting to. It's very important to understand that distinction.

**Clare:** Wonderful, that's wonderful.

With regard to the Holy Spirit though, when we connect to the Holy Spirit and Divine Love flows into the soul, the soul grows in its capacity, in its gifts of the spirit. It is important for us to understand that connecting to the Holy Spirit and receiving Divine Love does increase our capacity to speak in tongues; it increases our capacity to prophesy; it increases our capacity to see spirits. In the first century I could easily see spirits and talk to them because the Love, the Divine Love that was in my soul, had changed my soul capacities to the point where I could see the people that I was speaking with and hear them while I'm speaking to them, and talk to them about the truth about what they were doing. This is the beauty of connecting with God's Love first. And that's why in the first century I said, "Seek first God's Love and all these other things will be added to you," and that's what I suggest that Christians generally, but also every person on this planet, decides to do. Seek first God's Love and all these other fascinating things that we can enjoy and have fun with, will come to us in time.

11. What Christian beliefs cause difficulties in finding the narrow path to God?

**Clare:** Which erroneous beliefs give conventional Christians the most difficulty in finding the narrow path to God?

Well, this question was interesting for me when you first listed it; I just thought I could list so many beliefs here, because beliefs are a very individual experience. There are certain beliefs that we imbibe with our whole heart and soul, and those particular beliefs can have a terribly detrimental effect on our soul of course. There are beliefs that we hear but we don't really go with. For example, all of your life as a Christian you would have heard of the Trinity, but you've never really believed that Jesus is God.

**Clare:** No.

You didn't know, but it's not something about which you firmly thought, "Yes, he's definitely God," is it?

**Clare:** No, no, definitely.

So you could say under those conditions that the belief entered your mind but it didn't really enter your heart.

**Clare:** It didn't enter the heart. It went around and around the head.

It went round and round and you couldn't make sense of it. You couldn't make sense of it and so it never went down (pointing from his head towards his heart), is what you're basically saying. And this is the case with many beliefs that we hear. No matter what religious profession we are, there are some beliefs that enter our heart because we have an openness to believing them, and not necessarily because they're right either, but we have an openness to believing them, whereas other beliefs only enter our head and they don't enter our heart. For example, in the 1800's there was a general Christian belief that black people were cursed. Now, it entered the hearts of the people who engaged slaves. In other words, they felt justified in having black slavery because they, with their heart, engaged the concept that the blacks were cursed from Kane.

Now, the Christians who did not agree with that, in other words the Christians who heard that teaching but it never entered their hearts, could not embrace slavery. They could see that slavery was wrong, so those Christians didn't embrace slavery when the other Christians who let this belief enter their heart could embrace slavery. That's an example of how a belief affects us. It is mostly the beliefs that go into our heart that affect our life in the spirit world and in our future, and so with this question that you've asked; it is mostly the heart-felt beliefs that cause us the most trouble when we arrive in the spirit world. They also cause us the most trouble here on earth because it's a very similar position.

So the question then becomes: what are the Christian belief systems that enter the heart that damage the heart so much that it makes it very difficult for a person to get out of those belief systems? This is what I feel they are. The very first and biggest one: the concept of God. The concept of God in general Christianity is that God is loving but love includes punishment and violence, because there is an expectation that God will violently destroy the wicked. There is a justification of this belief by saying that the wicked deserve destruction. Now, no-one ever considers of course that God might not have made a system where the wicked need to be destroyed. The fact is that God is much more clever than that. The way God made the system is that the wicked need to be corrected, not destroyed, so God made a corrective system for the wicked, not a destructive system for the wicked. This is something that we need to understand.

However most Christians want there to be a destructive condition for the wicked. They are very open to the concept that love involves punishment, and not only punishment but violence. This is partially because many of them have been punished by their parents while the parents are saying, "I love you. I'm belting you with a stick because the Bible tells me I should but I love you." But if you were belting an adult with a stick it would be called assault.

This is all part of why people have imbibed into their heart this concept about God, this concept that God is a violent, punishing God at times, and that that is love. That is the destructive belief. Now that single destructive belief has a huge effect on many Christians when they pass, for many reasons. One reason is: when they pass over, many Christians are not in the condition they'd hoped to be, and therefore they usually end up in some place in the 1st dimension of the spirit world, in what is called the hells. Now, because they've been taught that they can't get out of the hells and God's going to punish them forever, they don't even try to get out. They don't even understand that they can get out, and that causes a stagnation of their soul for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. I've seen some Christians who've had stagnated souls for over a thousand years as a result of that one teaching affecting them.

This concept that God is an unloving God or a violent punishing God who destroys the wicked, is a false concept of God that most Christians have imbibed through their reading of the Bible and as a result of believing that the Bible is God's Word. They have forced themselves to believe it, but not only that, they readily accept it because their own parents were often violent while at the same time saying that they were loving. So there's a predisposition to actually imbibing the belief. As a result of that they then feel that the concept of God is true. But it is not true, and every time you have a false concept of God you cannot ever be at-one with God; you cannot ever be in harmony with God's Love when you have a false concept of God. So that is a very damaging thing to do.

The second belief that I feel has a huge effect on Christians are the false beliefs about myself. The false belief that I am God has a huge effect on most Christians. It has a huge negative effect on many of them because they sort of think of me as some kind of special unique God-man and therefore they do not believe that they are capable of the same way of acting that I was capable of in the first century. They don't believe themselves to be capable of it because they believe themselves to be sinners, and they believe that sin is inherent within them and cannot be removed. Now, I stated quite categorically, and it's actually recorded in the Bible, that you could become perfect, but most Christians ignore those verses, thinking that that's impossible, particularly while they are on earth, and as a result of that they compare themselves with me. They always come up short in their own opinion and then as a result of that they attack themselves and berate themselves and punish themselves, which actually means they never get close to God.

In addition, they believe that I am God and that is false too. They're trying to connect to somebody who is not God. I cannot give them Divine Love. Divine Love only comes from God. They can pray to me 'til they're blue in the face and nothing will change unless they have a feeling for God's Love, then something will change. These beliefs about me, including the beliefs of my sacrifice for example, are all beliefs that have caused huge amounts of problems for Christians after they've passed.

This concept that my blood saves them from their sin is directly opposite to the concept that I tried to teach that is present in the Bible, that every single person will be responsible for their own sin. Now what they're basically trying to say is that, by their belief in me that erases their sin, I will become responsible, and that is not the case at all. Many of them arrive in the spirit world with all the sins they've committed in their life on earth not being erased, because they need to erase it using a different method than believing in me. And this is a very damaging teaching because it causes a lot of them to arrive in the spirit world in a dark condition and then, and only then, they go, "Well, Jesus' blood didn't save me; Jesus' blood hasn't erased my sin because I still have it in me, I can feel it, so what's the point in believing anything that I believe?" And they throw everything away and that causes them to get into a very dark condition of just doing whatever they want; not believing anything, not trusting anybody, not trusting God exists, not trusting that God's Love is there for them. They throw away all these beliefs that could help them as well, because of that one teaching. So that's a very damaging thing to do, too.

The belief about the Holy Spirit is the next damaging belief I feel, that causes Christians a lot of trouble when they pass. This belief causes them to think that when they were conversing with spirits they were conversing with the Holy Spirit. Many Christians get told to do things by spirits that they assume they're being told to do by God, and this is very damaging to them, because they're actually doing things that other people are telling them to do. Now if they could see the person, say it was like me saying, "Go here today; do that today; go there, visit this person," they'd go, "Why am I listening to you?" But because it's a spirit who they believe is the Holy Spirit saying, "Go here; go there today; do this; do that," they just go and do it willingly. They give up their will because of their belief and that's a very, very damaging thing to do for your future. God's trying to help you embrace your will and they're giving up their will and as a result becoming over-cloaked by spirits who are then assisting them to do things. It's very damaging.

Another belief that's very damaging are beliefs about the devil. These beliefs are pre-Christian; they've been, throughout the ages, the dark and light concept, that if there is brightness there has to be darkness, and this is not true. God created a universe where we chose to embrace the darkness because we had free will to make the choice. We could also choose to embrace the brightness if we wished, and there is no mastermind of darkness. There is no devil, no angel of God who went bad, none of that. The belief in the devil causes a lot of fear and in fact if you listen to many sermons that Christian ministers give, they are threatening the congregation with the devil: "The devil's got into them," and "If you listen to this you're from the devil, and if you listen to that you're from the devil," and if you listen to almost anything that's outside of the line of what they believe is truth it "... is from the devil," and this is a great way to control and manipulate people, but a terrible effect on your soul.

So many Christians pass over in the spirit world with huge levels of fear about the threat from a devil, particularly the Christians who are sincere, who know they've sinned, and who don't feel they've been forgiven for it yet. Those particular Christians are just waiting for the devil to come when they pass, and they're in huge amounts of fear, huge amounts of pain and suffering as a result of not realising there is no devil and that the only 'devils' that have ever been present in their life have been evil spirits that have been trying to influence them to do evil things.

The teachings about the devil are very damaging, the teachings that once you pass you can't change; you're either saved or judged. These are very damaging teachings. These teachings teach you that you can't make a different choice at a later time, and this is a very dangerous teaching. It's a very dangerous teaching because it causes people to have no hope. Many of them pass into the spirit world, have a relative condition of darkness compared to what they would like to have had, and then as a result of that feel that they must be in hell, and then they also feel automatically that they can't get out of it no matter what they do, and they don't even try as a result. Many of them just sit there waiting to be punished, waiting in this place of stagnation because they've been taught something that causes them to believe that that's what they need to wait for; wait for the judgement of God to condemn them to hell, and it's a very damaging teaching. It has a big effect on many Christians as a result, as you can imagine.

Like I'm saying, there are so many teachings ...

**Clare:** There must be help for them; I suppose they're just not seeing the help. I understand that, but there must be so many people who really feel so much compassion for these poor people.

But see, they've been told that they're demons as well. You see, this is the trouble, and they even quote verses of the Bible to you when you're a spirit. I've had spirits quote to me, in the spirit world, verses of the Bible that say things like this: "A person masquerading as an angel of light ..." Now, as I pointed out to people in the first century, you can't masquerade as an angel of light.

**Clare:** Yeah, that'd be a bit difficult, wouldn't it?

It's impossible, but there are verses in the Bible that state this. You can put on a facade for a short period of time but as a spirit it's very difficult to do such a thing. You can also put on a facade of words and masquerade as light with words but someone can look at your person and see straight away whether you have brightness or not. But that scripture has been quoted to me so many times. Many people have asked for Jesus to come to them when they feel in a degree of pain. I've gone to them in the spirit world and sat with them and they tell me to get away from them and swear at me and curse me because their viewpoint is that I'm 'masquerading as Jesus'. So what can you do to help such a person? You can only go away and wait for their belief system to change through some kind of interaction they have through the Law of Attraction with other things. So, yeah there's those kinds of problems too, that occur in the spirit world once a person passes.

I think you've got a question coming up about the shock: "How do you cope with the shock of what happens in the spirit world?" And I think in that discussion we can talk about some of the reactions that Christian spirit people have when they pass into the spirit world, and how they can address some of these problems. You see, many Christians don't realise that when they pass into the spirit world, things are not as they expect them to be generally. They don't sit at the right hand of God with me on a throne as they have been promised; they're not 'singing hallelujahs in the welcoming stand.' All of these things are not happening, in fact their life seems to continue very similarly to how it's continued on earth for the majority of them, and then they start to wonder whether any of their beliefs have been true.

Now there are a lot of Christian beliefs that are true. God does exist; there is one God; there is God's Love that can be received into the soul; you do have a soul; you do have a spirit body; you are able to progress; you are able to live in paradise in the spirit world. There are locations in the spirit world that are paradisiacal that you can live in and they are all available with the condition of love that the soul reflects.

Now, all of the disciples and apostles - men and women I'm talking about in the first century - who were with me are in the spirit world, most of them are still there. You could ask any one of them to come to you and talk to you about the first century and what it was really like. You could ask any one of them to come to you and talk to you about what my teachings really were in the first century. They can show pictures of what they saw themselves, to the mind of the person who asks the questions, so that you can see what I taught. They can distribute huge amounts of information.

There are places in the spirit world where you can get a book like the Bible and in it is annotated every reason for every verse that was ever written: the person who wrote it - the person who actually wrote it, not the person who it claims wrote it; the spirit who inspired it; why they did it; where they were coming from - everything. This information is available everywhere in the spirit world but only available to the people who are willing to find it, who want to find it. That's where I feel there is another problem and that is that the Bible itself says, "Don't listen to anything else." The Book of Galatians, it says, "If anybody comes to you, even an angel in heaven comes to you, revealing something other than what the Bible has already ruled, don't listen to him."

Now many Christian spirits when they pass in the spirit world, they take that verse literally, so when they pass into the spirit world, they go, "Okay, I'm not allowed to listen to anything other than what the Bible says, so if anybody comes to me and tells me something about the Bible I'll listen to them, but anybody who tells me something that's different to what the Bible says, I don't listen to them." So you imagine, a disciple of Jesus from the first century or an apostle of Jesus in the first century, male or female, comes to the person in response to their question and starts talking about something that is not contained in the Bible, what do they do? They go, "I can't listen to you, you're an apostate, you're bright (laughter)," without thinking, "Ah, that's ..."

**Clare:** "I feel good when I'm with you ..."

"I feel good when I'm with you." (Laughter)

**Clare:** "I feel I could progress; I feel like I could go somewhere." (Laughter)

Yeah, "I feel good when I'm with you and, come to think of it, Jesus did say something about brightness and not holding your light under a basket ..." (laughter], but they forget all of that because there's this other verse prohibiting the absorption of this knowledge and this is the problem. Like, the problem with these kinds of verses is that they lock the person up into stagnation; they don't free them. Remember I said, and it's recorded in the Bible, "The truth will set you free." It doesn't lock you up into a place.

These kinds of verses, the verses like in Galatians 1 where it talks about how you can't trust anybody, even a spirit or an angel who comes to you and teaches you something other than 'Good News,' than what you've been taught, that kind of mentality locks you up into only a certain way of thinking. Now when one of those angels comes to you they must be an angel for a reason; they've got to have a lot of love in their soul, and must have listened to some truth to get to that particular point, and this kind of a verse is basically condemning them and telling you not to listen to them.

That is very, very damaging and dangerous and it causes the poor spirit to go, "I'm not listening to you; I'm not listening to you. I feel like I like you a lot though; you're a nice person." (Laughter] They get all confused about that and they're confused about the amount of love the person's showing. "The person's talking about Jesus and talking about the Good News but they're also saying about soulmates and they're saying about other teachings that Jesus isn't God and that the Holy Spirit isn't God and that there's this Divine Love and I've never heard of the Divine Love. There was mention of it in the Bible but I might not have read about it, and then the spirit's saying, 'There's no devil. You don't have to worry about a devil.'" And you're saying, "No, the Bible has revealed to me all of these things and I can't listen to you," and unfortunately for many of these Christian spirits they stay in that state for long periods of time, not understanding why they didn't get what was promised.

I promised mansions in the spirit world to my followers, and the reason why is that if they follow my teachings as I taught them they will get into beautiful conditions of love and they'll need a mansion in which to live, just reflecting their beautiful condition of love. I promised them paradise in the spirit world. I promised them to be with me in the Celestial kingdom of the spirit world, in my kingdom. Now, if they're not there and they're not in paradise and they're not in any of these places that I describe and they don't have a mansion of their own, this is an indication that something went wrong and it's not something that went wrong with my teaching; it's something that went wrong with the distortion of the teachings. The problem with the belief in the Bible is that it contains some of my teachings as well as distortions of my teachings. If you believe the distortions of my teachings they will prevent you from having the mansion, prevent you from having the paradise, and prevent you from being in my kingdom because it'll be the lack of love that prevents you from being there.

If you understand the teachings as I taught them then the Love will transform your soul and you'll have a mansion, and you'll have paradise, and you'll be in the kingdom; you'll be able to speak with the disciples and apostles from the first century and every one of them since that have done the same thing. That's what I would encourage Christian spirits and Christian people on earth after they pass, to do. I would encourage them to focus on getting information from the people who are bright and seeing that if the person's bright they must know more Truth as I said in the first century, and if they know more Truth then "maybe the 'Truth' in the Bible isn't the Truth. Maybe I need to change my perspective of what's going on with what I understand from the Bible." And that's what I would recommend a lot of people do.

Probably the last area where I feel that Christians get negatively affected by their teachings is that because there is this internal concept that they are sinners and there's no good in them, they don't trust their emotions very much; they trust their intellect. Now, the problem with trusting your intellect is that false and true beliefs can exist in your intellect at the same time, but false and true beliefs cannot exist in your soul at the same time. If you remove a false belief from your soul, the Truth can enter it. Many Christians who pass in the spirit world are still trying to heavily use their intellects to resolve the condition of Truth.

When you go to them and start speaking about the Divine Love they say, "Oh, but what does the Bible tell me?" and then they go there, "The Bible tells me this, the Bible tells me that." "Look at some contradictions in the Bible," and they look at those, and they study all of those and they say, "But I don't understand what you're saying," and they're all trying to do it with their mind, instead of just engaging this concept that God wants to write the Law on their heart and their heart is emotional; their heart is their feeling centre of themselves. It's their soul, and if they allow their soul to open towards God and they have a desire for God from their soul, all transformation can take place. That's how simple it is.

The problem with focusing on the development of the mind and studying things and studying things and studying things in order to understand them without actually feeling any of them, is that your soul is not transformed. Many Christians pass into the spirit world with heavily developed intellects in quite a good moral condition and many of them in quite a good ethical condition, but because their heart is not being touched by Love they struggle in the spirit world to come to God.

These are all different reasons why many Christians find it difficult. You'll find that every religion on the planet and every no-religion on the planet, every non-religion and no-religion on the planet, every single person who's a member of any of those things, has a specific set of emotional conditions which determine how easy or hard it will be when they arrive in the spirit world. There are many Christians who have found it easy because they did not imbibe everything from the Bible. They thought, "Ah, that doesn't make much sense to me, I can't accept that," and because of that openness to reason they easily embrace Divine Truth. Other Christians who are very militant and violent in their opinions about the Bible and it being God's Word and so forth, they have spent many hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before they've found the Truth.

Many of those though have found the Truth faster than a person who has been a practiser of the New Age, who has been over-cloaked by very dark spirits all of their life; they've passed in the spirit world in a dark condition and they spend a lot of their life just in their addictions. So every single belief and teaching on this planet, even teachings of reincarnation and other teachings such as this, have a huge negative effect on the future progress of the person if they're false, whether they're on earth or in the spirit world. If we have compassion for everyone, no matter where they've come from, whatever background they've come from, and share whatever Divine Truth we can with them, that's going to have a very powerful effect on their lives if they are humble and open to listening to such Truth. The problem with locked-in opinions is that it makes you not very humble or open to listening to Truth.

12. What mistakes should a Christian who wants a relationship with God avoid?

**Clare:** What are the biggest mistakes to avoid for a sincere Christian wanting a personal relationship with God?

Well, yeah, this question caused me to think a little bit about things. I feel, as we've been discussing, that there are so many mistakes to avoid, but in my notes, I think I just felt that the single biggest mistake for a Christian was to assume that my blood, or belief in my sacrifice, saves them from their sins and establishes a relationship with God. It is a very big mistake to believe this. What establishes a relationship with God is the desire of the individual to have a relationship with God and to receive Divine Love through the process of prayer; that's what establishes a relationship with God. If you believe that anything else establishes a relationship with God other than that, you will never establish a relationship with God.

You may establish a lot of relationships with spirits claiming to be God, and you may establish a relationship with spirits claiming to be the Holy Spirit but they're not God either. You may establish a whole heap of relationships with spirits claiming to be Jesus, because there are literally hundreds of thousands of them as well, but you will not establish a relationship with God. I feel that the biggest single mistake a Christian can make is to not establish a relationship with God, not through my blood or any sacrifice that I'm meant to have made, but through desire to know God and love God and have God know them and love them. I feel that that is the biggest single thing I would love to see a Christian change on, getting away from this viewpoint that I saved them in some way, that somehow my blood establishes a relationship with God for them, and getting into this concept that their relationship with God is a personal relationship that they personally must desire to establish before it can be established.

**Clare:** Because when you look at some of the scripture writings it gets all very dry and legalistic with covenants and this and that.

It does.

**Clare:** It takes away from that pure beauty of just having a give and take Father-child relationship, when you're talking about covenants and this and that.

Well with all the covenants, you have to understand them from the heart in order to understand what their meaning is. The truth is that God did make a covenant with mankind through myself and this covenant was the Covenant of the Heart. The Covenant of the Heart, the New Covenant, is where God will write the Law, the Word of God, on the heart of the individual who is governed by this covenant. So if a person listens to what I teach, what I actually teach, not what they think I taught in the Bible or what they think I should have taught, but rather what I actually teach, they will find that I then become the mediator of this covenant for them, in the sense that because I've taught Divine Truth to them, I can now help them establish through this covenant that God has made ... Basically God is saying to all humans, every single human, doesn't matter who they are, God is saying to all humans no matter how bad or how good they are, "I make a covenant with you. I'm going to provide you a person ..." ... in this case it was Jesus ... "I'm going to provide you a person who's going to show you how to connect to Me to the point where I will be able to write My Word on your heart, just as I've written My Word on his heart." In other words, you can have God's Law written on your heart in the same way that Jesus has God's Law written on his heart if you engage the covenant. In that regard then, you will come to God, so does that help you understand what the covenant's all about, the New Covenant?

**Clare:** It does, it does, very much so.

But if you look at the Covenant in terms of a discussion of legalistic ...

**Clare:** They talk about a covenant of blood and ohh ...

And all these things? Now of course you're getting way off line and it becomes very complicated. Also, God made no covenant of blood. If you think about it, all blood on this planet belongs to God already so how can any of us make a sacrifice that doesn't already belong to God? We can't.

**Clare:** And didn't that come from the old Middle Eastern belief in Baal? Wasn't he a blood god?

Yes, where it came from is: prior to pre-Christian times, there were many, many religions who believed in this wrathful god. They believed that they either had to please the gods or sacrifice for the gods. In fact they believed that pleasing the gods was sacrificing for the gods. They also believed that the way to get more from God, if you like, or have God's approval, was to give God the first fruits of whatever you did.

Now for many of these religions it meant that the firstborn of their children, they would actually ... The child would be born and then they'd have a certain day of the year where they'd actually sacrifice the child. They'd cut the child up and burn it to their god, and they believed that that would actually cause them to then have God's blessing for the rest of the year. Now, Abraham came from these particular belief systems and Abraham had more love in his soul, and he obviously felt that these belief systems were not very loving, which is quite obvious to us now but of course when you're driven by fear it's not very obvious. But Abraham had less fear in his soul about toe-ing the line, the status quo as we might say nowadays, so he felt that there must be another way to connect to God. In doing this he received inspiration from spirits that God didn't want sacrifice, and in fact there are parts of the Bible where it says very plainly that God's saying, "I do not want sacrifice; I want obedience and not sacrifice," so these are things that we need to understand; God doesn't want sacrifice, God would like to have obedience instead, and that means obedience to God's Laws. Whenever we obey God's Laws we'll always be happier but we have to do so voluntarily because we have free will.

But in Abraham's case, these spirits through this process that he had with his son, Isaac, got him to recognise that he didn't need to sacrifice his firstborn anymore. Instead they substituted animals, so there was still this belief that blood somehow saved or appeased the god. Abraham was one of the first persons in his neighbourhood who believed in one God, not in many, because it was very popular to believe in many gods. He believed in one true God but he still had this concept of God that was quite damaging in the sense that he still felt that God required the sacrifice of a living creature in order to be appeased in some manner, or in order to be a sacrifice for his sins, as the saying goes.

Now, this became the foundation of Judaism and the Jewish religion. That was around for 1,500 years or so before I arrived on the planet and I, of course, felt that that was barbaric because I had been to the temple and saw the blood running down the side streets near the temple, of all these animals that were being sacrificed for the sins of people who were committing them the next day generally anyway. They had no effect on God whatsoever, aside from God smelling the stench of the animals being destroyed and killed. That's what caused me to become a vegetarian in the first century, which very few people actually know.

But if you look at it, that concept of sacrifice, through Paul, got drawn into Christian religious faith. When I say through Paul, it's through Paul's writings, so-called Paul's writing, though Paul didn't actually believe it either. These were modifications to Paul's writings that occurred that Paul didn't even believe himself, but that got added to try to put together patterns from the Old Testament to the New.

**Clare:** Yes, we're always trying to reflect back the Old and the New Testament, reflecting back on each other.

Exactly; it was an attempt to draw together what they felt was the Bible Canon and explain it to people. So they then called me "The lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." Now I personally cannot take away a single individual sin. I can teach them something that will take away their sin but only if they follow my words, only if they follow my teachings. That can take away sin but I personally am not capable, through my death, of taking away a single person's sin, even my own, ironically.

So, these are all teachings that were put together again coming from old, mixing it up, mixing it up, mixing it up, drawing it into the new, because people find change very difficult. You know that. Even now when I'm speaking to groups of people in an audience you'll hear them saying, "So are you meaning that that's what I heard about this?" And I'm saying, "No it's not that at all," and they go, "Oh, that's what I thought you were saying." Do you know what I mean? They were always trying to bring in the old to the new, rather than just go, "Hang on a second, let's just forget the old for a moment and just start fairly fresh and let's only bring in the old when it aligns with the new," you know, when it makes sense, when it's logical. But most people don't do that of course and unfortunately by bringing in the old they distort the new, and this is what happened very rapidly to my teachings.

In the first century, even while I was alive, I had people repeating my teachings to me in the way they understood them which was not the way I was teaching them, while I was alive. And so it was undoubtedly going to happen when I died. Even while I'm alive now I can reassure people over and over again, "No, in the first century that's not what I taught," and they'll still believe that that's what I taught. These modified teachings get told back to me. Like, I even get told - this is Jesus getting told what Jesus said in the first century. Well, surely Jesus knows what Jesus said (laughing) and this is because people don't believe I'm Jesus of course, just like in the first century they didn't believe I was the messiah, and so they were always trying to bring in the old to try to make sense of it all. And this is also not a very productive thing in terms of a person's future.

**Clare:** Yeah, for sure.

So, my suggestion to Christians is to consider what's being said in these questions and at least consider the bits that they feel they can consider without disagreeing with the disharmony with what they already have inside of themselves if they want to, but understand that when they pass into the spirit world they have these beautiful options of talking to the people who were with me in the first century. They have the option of hearing from them.

**Clare:** Do they just call for them or ask for them?

All they need to do is call for them and they'll come, and instead of going, "Oh, no. You're telling me something different to what the Bible says so I can't listen to you." Put that down for a moment; nothing could be harmed by putting it down for a moment. Listen to the people who were with me in the first century and ask them, "What did Jesus actually say here? What did Jesus say about this? Is Jesus God? Is the Holy Spirit God? Does Jesus' sacrifice clear me from my sin? Why am I where I am now?" Ask them the questions and let these bright spirits who obviously have a lot of light, therefore a lot of love, share with you how they have learned to live in love.

13. Are spirits guiding leaders of the church to change church teachings?

**Clare:** Are there spirits today who are actually affecting some of the leaders within the Church?

Yes.

**Clare:** Yeah, because I know there are some teachers and they've been in trouble, they're always in trouble, but they have said, "Look, is Jesus really God?" and they're bringing that into the discussion.

Yes.

**Clare:** They're bringing in, "Is it your death that actually saves or was it your life? -and us copying what you do, and trying to live our lives the same way that you're living your life.

Exactly.

**Clare:** They're the questions that they're bringing in now.

Yes, and these are motivated by Celestial spirits who know the Truth, who are constantly trying to connect to Christians because they can feel in Christians that many Christians have a sincere desire to experience the Love of God.

**Clare:** ... and they want to know the Truth.

And they want to know the Truth. So these Celestial spirits have been trying to influence ones for centuries, and just now, in the modern time, they're starting to have a bit more of an influence on these people to help them get away from actually treating this (indicating the Bible) as God's Word and starting to see that God's Word needs to be written onto the heart, because this (indicating the Bible] can't contain God's Word. God's Word is far greater and bigger and more incredibly beautiful than any words in the English language can describe, or in any language for that matter, and it has to be an experience that a person has written on their heart. Many Christians are now starting to understand this because they have spirits with them who are attempting to help them understand this. Conversely, there is also another group of spirits who want everyone to keep the orthodoxy.

**Clare:** You can see that happening too.

So now you see a polarisation of the Christian faith occurring, where there are Christians who are developing in love and developing in their understanding towards Divine Truth, towards the real Truth, God's Truth, and then there are Christians who are very firm and set in their ways, who are almost militantly violent towards the other group of Christians. And what I suggest to those people is that violence is never ever going to help you become more loving. Yelling and screaming and condemning people and judging people is directly against your own Bible and directly against my teachings. If you are ever going to have a relationship with God, my suggestion is to give that up as quickly as possible.

But there are groups of spirits helping in both camps and so there is a bit of a battle, a spiritual battle if you like, going on at the moment for what is right and what will eventually become a part of what is believed on the planet and in the spirit world, in the lower spheres of the spirit world. I feel that's really good. It's a necessary part of the modification of the Christian faith. If the Christian faith teaches what I actually taught in the first century, it would be a growing, expansive faith; it would accomplish huge things on this planet. Unfortunately it accomplished a lot of destruction on the planet because it's that restrictive, violent, misunderstanding of God as a god of wrath violence, and as I keep saying to people, "The God you believe in is the person you also become." If you believe in a wrathful, punishing, angry God, you are going to become a wrathful, punishing, angry person. If you believe in a loving, compassionate, kind God you will eventually become a loving, compassionate, kind person.

The God you believe in is the person you'll become, and my feelings are that for a majority of religions on the planet we need to get away from this dogmatic adherence to words when there is no love. Now I understand adhering to words that are all based around love. That makes a lot of sense and in fact I'm very firm about that. I'll die for that. I won't kill for that but I'll die for that. But I certainly would not kill for any reason, let alone for a dogmatic, unloving set of teachings. So that would be my suggestion to Christians who are listening to these FAQs.

But we've got a number of other questions to answer, haven't we, for the future? We've probably got another ten or twelve to answer, at least with yourself, so maybe we can leave that for another week and answer those sets of questions then.

Appendix: FAQ Outline

Divine Truth FAQ Outline - 20130304 Religion Christian S01

01. Could you please tell us of the early followers of Jesus who followed "The Way"?

02. How did early followers of Jesus differ from contemporary Christians?

They did not have a book (the Bible) to constrain them. They did, however, if they were educated, have the Jewish

They had myself (Jesus) to refer to as an example of daily life and conduct. They had very similar emotions to the average person today.

They were not Christian moralists, but many were Jewish moralists.

They were not fixated on belief systems that did not satisfy their soul.

They sought the truth, even when family, friends and society condemned them. They were not addicted to social acceptance, or orthodox acceptance.

03. What sustained the courage & determination of the early Christian martyrs of Rome to be so strong?

Their faith in their immediate transformation into the spirit world, and that life is continuous and does not cease when the physical body is destroyed.

04. I understand the Bible scriptures have been corrupted & deliberately edited over the last 2000 years. How can Christians read scripture to evoke prayer & contemplation & opening their heart to God knowing that parts of the Bible have been corrupted?

Any scripture that moves the heart and soul, whether from the Bible, or any other Holy book, or any other book for that matter, can evoke contemplation and opening our heart to God. Focus on passages that move you in this positive loving direction.

Avoid any passage that creates fear, judgement, or condemnation of others within you, or that tends to justify violence or unloving behaviour within you. These verses are not in harmony with God's Love and Truth.

Focus on truly getting to know God, rather than believing what you have been taught about God from a book that is flawed in its concept of God. Understand that God is more Loving than any human, and so therefore cannot be conceived as having the same emotions and feelings that humans have.

05. Is it true that the imagery of the scriptures becomes even more vivid & meaningful in the spirit world?

06. From Isaiah 9, which is quoted in Matthew 4:16, 17; "the people in darkness have seen a great light" & God calls us to be a light for others. How do we best do this?

07. How did the doctrine of the Trinity come about?

There was a history of Trinitarian concepts before Christianity, just as there is a history of other concepts now included in Christianity. Concepts that were included in other religious forms before the concept was first proposed by Christian faiths that were a distortion of my teachings include:

Teaching

A triune Godhead

My Concept In 1st Century

I did not believe in a triune God, and I have never believed that I am any part of God. My disciples did not believe this either. I did, however, know that I was at-one with God because I had received Divine Love until the point of becoming perfected by God's Love. The specifics of Trinitarian theology were not defined until the 4th century (325) but they began in the minds of individuals from the 2nd century. In 325 every bishop who refused to accept the Nicene Creed were exiled and excommunicated. Their writings were burned. The Trinitarian doctrine in substantially its current form was finalized by 381 (First Council of Constantinople).

Many religious concepts existed prior to my appearance that taught a triune Godhead. They are just as illogical as the Christian concept. Many of these teachings came from mythology, which were concepts presented by spirits who had already passed into the spirit world to people on earth they could inspire with their thoughts. All of these concepts as to the nature of God were false.

Teaching

Blood sacrifice for God

My Concept In 1st Century

I did not believe that the Jewish custom of performing a blood sacrifice for God saved them from anything at all. I knew that God did not require sacrifice. I also became at-one with God without sacrificing anything. My at-onement with God happened before my own death. I encouraged others to become at-one with God while I was alive.

The requirement of a blood sacrifice came from the basic human fears associated with belief about a punishing and wrathful God that needed to be appeased by blood. Usually this meant the death of a first-born child, or the death of a first-born animal, and these concepts were later incorporated into so-called Christianity.

Teaching

A priest, a mediator between God and man

My Concept In 1st Century

I knew that there was no need for a priesthood in order to connect with God, and that God wanted a personal relationship with each child without someone mediating the relationship.

Priests existed before my arrival on earth, and are established by humans who wish to seek power and control over the moral natures of other humans. Initially political and religious power was generally one and the same thing in most nations, until those nations found that they could not progress while constrained by religious teachings which were mythological and obviously scientifically false. Constantine sought to combine Christian religious power with his own political power because the Roman empire was disintegrating. It was important politically to establish the priesthood in order to control the beliefs of the population.

Teaching

Concept of the Devil

My Concept In 1st Century

I knew there were many devils (or evil people who had passed into the spirit world who influenced people on earth, but that there was NO mastermind behind them, a single Devil as claimed later by the Christians who distorted my teachings.

The concept of the Devil is created by humankind's fear, desire to threaten others with punishment when they disagree, and flawed spiritual attempts to understand why evil exists on the earth, and why evil spirits could come and hurt people on earth.

Teaching

Virgin Birth

My Concept In 1st Century

I knew that I was the son of my father Joseph, and my mother Mary. They had sex and conceived me. There was no such thing as my mother, father or myself ever believing I was the product of some immaculate conception.

The virgin birth concept was an attempt of early Christians to compete with other religious faiths about the origins of their deities. A believer in Greco-Roman and Hellenistic mythology might refer to Dionysus, or Pan stating their origins as from a virgin birth, and then a Christian has no recourse to refute (since I was born in the normal way). But once they made me into a God, then I had to have comparable origins to the gods of the pagans in order to compete.

Teaching

Easter

My Concept In 1st Century

In my early life as a Jew, I celebrated the Passover, but without the blood sacrifice, since I was a vegetarian, and also did not agree that the blood of the animal saved me from any sin. Later, I did not celebrate the Passover, although I respected the right of others to celebrate it. This was a major problem for my family, and especially my father, who finished up becoming a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin before my death. We did not celebrate the pagan celebrations, because I knew that all of them were just as unimportant as the Jewish religious celebrations and rituals.

I never incorporated the remembrance of my own death as claimed by the Bible. I did have a meal with some followers (an equal distribution of men and women) the night before being captured by the Jewish Sanhedrin, which was later made into a ritual by later Christians who wanted a parallel between old testament rituals and my own life and death.

Teaching

Christmas

My Concept In 1st Century

December 25 was the shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere, and had no relationship to my birth. It was, however, a time when worshippers of the Sun had many celebrations, as it was considered the time of the rebirth of the sun each year. Jews in my time did not celebrate the time of our birth each year on its anniversary; because it was considered by most that the birth of a person did not determine what kind of person the individual would become. December 25 is not the date of my 1st century birth.

Teaching

The Bible is God's Word

My Concept In 1st Century

The Biblical cannon was not established firmly for 7 centuries after my death. I did not believe that the portions of what is now called the Bible that were available in my day were "God's Word". I could observe how spirits transmitted information through people who would accept these transmissions, and so they were the writings of men, often dictated by spirits, all of whom were in various conditions of error.

I knew that God's Word was infinite, and could only be written on the hearts of humans in portions, and as those humans received more Divine Love from God. This Love would transform the human soul, and the Laws of God would then be understood by those humans. No book could ever contain all of God's Word, since it is a physical impossibility. I became the "Word" of God when I became at-one with God.

Teaching

Communications with Spirits is Evil

My Concept In 1st Century

I never agreed to this, and in fact, I often did communicate with spirits, both good and evil, as outlined in the Bible record. Most of these communications were outlawed by priests who were afraid of the common people learning truth that the priests were withholding from the common people.

All incorporation of these untrue doctrines into my teachings began as a result of political expedience and erosion over time of the true teachings. I warned my followers before I passed that this would begin to occur as soon as I passed, because people were already misquoting me while I was still alive (ironically as they also do now, even while I am still alive).

In addition, there were many glosses added to the manuscripts over many centuries, particularly the first 3 centuries after my death, and these glosses eventually found their way into the actual texts. These were then used as "proof" of doctrines that I never taught, and which were false.

08. For what purpose did the early church fathers create the Christian Trinity doctrine?

This occurred in 325 with the Nicene Creed, set up by Constantine, the first pagan Roman Emperor who converted to Christianity on his death bed. At the time of the council, he was not a Christian. The persecution of the Christians had been ceased a few years earlier in 311 AD by his predecessor, Galerius, who advocated tolerance of Christianity, although he was himself an opponent of Christianity, when he admitted that the persecution of Christians had failed as a government policy to eradicate the belief systems. Christianity was officially legalized in the Roman Empire two years later in 313 by Constantine and Licinius in the Edict of Milan.

The main purpose of the Nicene Creed of 325 was to refute the developing contradictions of belief surrounding my (Jesus) role and nature amongst early so-called church fathers, to create unity of belief, and to solidify and unify Christianity as a religion in order to prevent the fragmentation of the Roman Empire which was rapidly being harmed by the warring parties who supported different belief systems. Constantine did not care about what beliefs were eventually chosen about the issue of the deity of Christ, as long as it resulted in less trouble in the empire.

There is, as Wikipedia states: "much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds, or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs, [but] all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

The Christians by this time were militant, and would often be involved in the destruction of pagan temples and pagan history. In addition, very few of them demonstrated any love whatsoever for any person who had a different belief system than they held, and they used the justification that God would destroy such people for them to engage in the killing of people who did not share the same beliefs.

09. Where was the Church Hierarchy mistaken in their thinking when it comes to the Trinity doctrine?

Firstly, in my statements I am not going to quote the Bible, since the Bible itself is a flawed document, containing Truth and Error mixed within its pages. Let's list the doctrine and outline the false statements:

First Council of Nicea (325)

1.We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only- begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

3. By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];

4. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

5. He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

6. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

7. And in the Holy Ghost.

9. [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

First Council of Constantinople (381)

1.We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

3. By whom all things were made;

4. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

4. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

5. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

6. From thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

7. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

8. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I have listed the original Nicene Creed, and the 381 AD modification to the creed which forms the basic statements regarding the Trinity.

Statement 1 is completely true.

Statement 2 is completely false. I am not God, the only begotten of God, not made, nor do I have the very substance of the Father. I am a normal human being, who, in the 1st century and during the last 2,000 years, received enough Love from God through my own actions and desire in order to become at-one with God.

Statement 3 is completely false. I did not make all things in heaven and on earth.

Statement 4 is completely true, but not in the manner believed by most Christians.

Statement 5 is partially true. I was "raised" from the dead, not as an action of God, but because I have a spirit body just like everyone else, that continues to live on after the physical body has died. I was not raised on the 3rd day, but rather, as soon as my physical body died. I appeared to disciples on the 3rd day, after I visited some locations in the spirit world, such as my own home at the time in the 3rd Celestial sphere, and the hells to share with people the Truth about becoming at-one with God. I have never resided with God in His locale, as the words imply.

Statement 6 is completely untrue. I am not ever going to judge anyone.

Statement 7 is completely true for the Nicene Creed, in that we should believe in the Holy Spirit because it does exist. However, it is not God, nor an entity.

Statement 7 is completely untrue for the Constantinople Creed. The Holy Spirit does not give life (since God's Love gives immortal life). The Holy Spirit should not be worshipped, because it is an attribute of God, rather than being God Herself. The Son, referring to myself, should also not be worshipped, and to do so is a blasphemy against God, and a disservice to myself, since I do not wish to take God's place.

Statement 8 is completely untrue for the Constantinople Creed. God has never established a church on earth, and never will, except within the hearts of humankind. God does not share power with a man-made institution.

Statement 9 is almost completely untrue for the Nicene Creed. There was a time when I was not, I was not made out of nothing, I am not of another substance to any other person (except when I receive Divine Love that others may not have received, but can receive), I was created (as all other souls have been created), and I am changing every day, as I expect I will continue to do for eternity.

Similar statements are contained in the basic statements of faith in most of the orthodox Christian religions (which were all, at one time or another viewed as cults by the Roman Catholic Church). For example, the Lutheran faith:

(1) Our theological dialogue as Orthodox and Lutherans has made clear to us that each of our churches believes in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God. We recognize one another's churches as churches believing in the Holy Trinity. We also recognize that our churches do not simply believe in, but worship the Holy Trinity. In our worship we not only confess our faith in the Trinity, but we encounter each of the persons of the Holy Trinity in their distinction from one another and their unity with each other as the one God.

(2) In our worship, Lutherans and Orthodox both explicitly confess faith in the Holy Trinity in the words of the Nicene Creed. Our churches are both committed to the Nicene Creed as ecumenically binding dogma, that is, as a statement of the apostolic faith in the Holy Trinity which is permanently normative for all Christians. We may therefore briefly summarize our shared faith in the Trinity by reference to the Nicene Creed.

(3) As Lutherans and Orthodox we both confess faith in "one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth." Confessing faith in God the Father, we together believe in the monarchy of the Father. The Father is the supreme principle, origin, source, and cause of all that exists and has life. He alone is unoriginate, and all that is, uncreated and created, originates from him. The Son and the Spirit are from his very being, whereas everything else is made by him from nothing, through his Son, and by his Spirit.

(4) As Lutherans and Orthodox we confess together faith in "one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God." This eternal Son of God is "begotten, not made." Unlike any creature, he does not come to be out of nothing by an act of God's will. He is eternally generated or begotten by the Father, receiving from the Father the Father's own divine nature or essence (ousia) which is undivided. He is therefore "one in essence [homoousios] with the Father." Although he is other than the Father, a hypostasis or person distinct from the Father, the Son is fully the one God, just as the Father is. Therefore as Lutherans and Orthodox we reject any form of Arianism, according to which the Son of God is less than fully God, and entitled to less than fully divine honor and worship.

(5) As Lutherans and Orthodox we confess together that this same eternal Son of God, "for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, and was made man." Fully God from all eternity, the Father's only-begotten Son became fully human in time, accepting the whole reality of human life and death. We therefore confess together that in Christ two natures, divine and human, are inseparably united in one person, so that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true human being. The eternal Son of God himself was truly born, suffered, was crucified and died in the flesh; this same Son was buried in the flesh, rose from the dead on the third day, and ascended to the Father's right hand in heaven. The only-begotten and incarnate Son reveals the Father to us, and sends the Holy Spirit into the world.

(6) As Lutherans and Orthodox we confess together faith in "the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life." Like the Son, the Holy Spirit receives his existence from the Father, though the Spirit "proceeds from the Father," while the Son is "begotten" of the Father. Like the Son, he receives from the Father the Father's own divine nature, and so he is one in essence with the Father and the Son. He is other than the Father and the Son, a hypostasis or person distinct from both, yet fully the one God, just as the Father and the Son are. The Creed attests this not only by calling him "the Lord, the giver of life," attributing to him divine names and actions which belong to God alone, but also by saying that "with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified." Because he is true God, to him belongs that honor and worship which are due to God alone.

10. Is the practice of praying in tongues that some Christians follow beneficial to their desire to connect to God?

Comments about the so-called "gifts of the Holy Spirit".

The purpose of the Holy Spirit is to be a conduit for Divine Love from God to enter the human soul. It has no other purpose. The Holy Spirit does not have a voice, does not have a character, is not an entity, and does not transmit anything other than Divine Love. The Holy Spirit is under the direct control of God, and is God's mechanism for transmitting Divine Love. This Truth was misunderstood by Bible revisionists who did not understand the difference between the "Holy Spirit", which is an energy or force of God directly for the purpose of establishing a conduit for the transmission of Divine Love between God and the human, and the term "spirit", which can refer to many things including the spirit body, a spirit individual, an angel, and an energy or emotion of a person.

Speaking in tongues, along with prophesying and other gifts, are not gifts of the "Holy Spirit" but are rather gifts of the "spirit", which is very different. However, these "gifts of the spirit" can grow and change as a result of receiving Divine Love. And Divine Love can only be received by maintaining a connection with the Holy Spirit. So, in a way, the Holy Spirit does have an indirect effect of causing changes to the human soul which allow for the "gifts of the spirit" to be expressed and grow, since the Divine Love which flows as a result of the connection established through the Holy Spirit, causes changes to the human soul that allow the rapid development of these other "gifts".

There are many gifts, which are all from the "spirit". These are abilities that can be discovered and exercised and that reside within the apparatus of the spirit body rather than the physical body, or are contained within the attributes that reside within the soul. They are similar in nature to the so-called 5 senses of the physical body, in that every person has these senses, whether they exercise them or not. These abilities are not directly from the "Holy Spirit" as the Bible or Christians claim.

The "Gift" that comes directly from God, which is the "Gift" of reception of Divine Love, can only occur through a connection with the energy of the Holy Spirit working in unison with Love and Truth. This very different to an ability that automatically resides within each individual person (whether exercised or not). An example of this kind of a Gift was the Gift given to Peter and others at Pentecost of Divine Love when they received through the connection they established with the Holy Spirit (i.e. by becoming in harmony with God's Truth, and exercising a desire to receive Divine Love as I taught them). Due to the changes this caused within the disciples at the time, their receiving Divine Love caused the "gift of tongues" to become available to them that enabled them to speak to over 3,000 people in their own languages about the Divine Truth. The "gift of tongues" was an EFFECT of the development of their soul when receiving Divine Love, and the changes that the Divine Love caused within the souls of the disciples at the time.

In Acts 2: 5, 6 Peter used the "gift" of speaking in tongues for a loving purpose; and that was to transmit to people listening to him the Divine Truth in their own language. There was a primary underlying purpose to speaking in tongues, and that was to share the Divine Truth to people who spoke different languages who could not understand the language spoken by Peter and others normally. This is the first recorded use of "speaking in tongues", and its purpose was to give Divine Truth to people who could not speak the language of the Jews (mostly Hebrew, Aramaic and some Greek). Peter and others spoke many different languages as a result of getting help from growing in Love during the period of the Pentecost, as well as now being able to connect to spirits who could speak through Peter and others in the language of the listener. "Speaking in tongues" is just speaking in the voice of a spirit who can speak a different language than the person channelling the spirit.

This "gift" of speaking in tongues, as it is called, can come as a result of a person receiving Divine Love to the point where their own soul is transformed enough that their mediumship ability (which is within each soul, developed or otherwise) is opened and higher spirits are able to speak through them. Since this channel is open, they can transmit information from people who exist in the spirit world; information from both benevolent spirits and malevolent spirits. This ability does not come from the Holy Spirit directly, or from the reception of Divine Love directly, but rather as a result of clearing away emotional and other belief based impediments from the soul which then allows the ability to be exercised. Remember this ability is a natural ability of the soul and the spirit body, but an ability which most people on earth are unaware of and therefore unable to use.

When these "gifts" are used in harmony with Divine Love and the Holy Spirit (which is the spirit of Divine Truth that comes from God) it will be used for the purpose of Love. When it is out of harmony with Divine Love, it will be used for selfish purposes.

But like all things, anytime an ability is opened up by God, there are spirits who wish to distort the ability, dilute it, and use it for their own purposes, most of which are based on having their own addictions met (addictions for power, prestige, popularity, etc). So, by the time of Paul, only a few years later, already the "gift of tongues" was being used for unloving purposes. In addition, if the person speaking and the listeners do not understand what is being said, then the speaking is pointless. It is not the "Holy Spirit" that is speaking because the Holy Spirit does not speak. There is also not a connection with God that is being expressed, because there is no loving purpose for the speech. Rather, the spirit who is doing the speaking through the person is just getting their own addictions met through the connection, and the person on earth is enabling the connection in order to be glorified, or because they are caught up in the emotion of the spirit speaking.

In 1 Corinthians 14: 1-9 Paul counsels people in Corinth to stop using the "gift" of tongues in a selfish manner. In this case, the "gift" came from an ability to receive communications from spirit people and not from reception of the Divine Love, since the "gift" was being used selfishly (both by the spirit transmitting and the person receiving). Paul indicated that if no translation was available, the only person that the individual speaking in tongues was benefiting was themselves. This meant there was a selfish motive, and therefore, Divine Love and the Holy Spirit could not be the cause of the so-called "gift". As Paul said, people doing this are just "speaking to the air". In addition it feeds the addictions of the spirit and the person channelling the spirit.

1 Corinthians 13:1 Paul states that development in Love should remain the main desire and passion of the Christian. Without development in Love, any gift the person develops as a subsequent effect of hearing more Divine Truth is just a pointless activity engaged for selfish reasons. Some of the Qualities of this Divine Love are listed in 1 Corinthians 13, and these qualities, which are automatically developed by the person growing in Love, are much more powerful and important to develop, both to themselves and any person listening or with whom they spend time. These are the things that true Christians focus on developing.

As I said in the first century, seek first God's Love, then all these other things will be added to you. In addition, once they are added to you, you will be able to use them in harmony with the Divine Love that resides within your soul, rather than for selfish purposes. I would recommend to all Christians who speak in tongues to question their own motivations as I have outlined in this answer.

11. Which erroneous beliefs give conventional Christians the most difficulty in finding the narrow path to God, now & when they pass into the spirit world?

A Christian finds who arrives in the spirit world generally finds the following principles the most difficult to accept:

10.1. Beliefs about a God of wrath and punishment.

10.2. Beliefs surrounding my role in their life.

10.3. Beliefs surrounding the role of the Holy Spirit.

10.4. Beliefs about the Devil.

10.5. Beliefs about heaven and hell.

10.6. Beliefs surrounding the forgiveness of sins.

10.7. Beliefs about justified violence.

10.8. Beliefs about sacrifice and ritual.

10.9. Beliefs about the suppression of emotions, and the intellectual control of emotions and desires.

12. What are the biggest mistakes to avoid for a sincere Christian wanting a personal relationship with God?

The biggest mistake is to assume that belief in Jesus saves, and to subsequently avoid developing a direct relationship with God where we receive Divine Love into our soul.

13. Are there spirits today guiding the leaders of the church to change the teachings of the church?

