Mel Gibson’s film The
Passion of the Christ has amazed many by its commercial success. This
probably lies as much in the desire of the faithful to see the agonies of
the supposed last hours of the life of Christ, as much as it does in
non-believers going to see what all the fuss was about.
It certainly appears to be one of the most gruesome films
in what might be called mainstream cinema. The justification for the
sickening violence is that it demonstrated how much he loved us, to show
what he was prepared to suffer to die for all our sins.
But is this not a false justification for an
unnecessarily brutal film? Did he really die for our sins, or the sins of
the faithful, or indeed for the sins of anyone? Or has this whole concept of
the vicarious sacrifice, someone who takes the punishment for another,
sprung instead from early Christian writers, notably Paul?
It seems, on balance, that this is almost certainly the
case. Many authors have written in the past about the lack of morality of
the concept of a vicarious sacrifice. Why should the innocent pay for the
sins of the guilty? Could such an unjust concept really be part of God’s
plan for mankind? Or is it a fabrication by priests keen to follow the lead
of Paul, noted for his remarkable conversion on the road to Damascus? Hence
we have a religion with an appeal to sinful man, holding out the promise of
Thomas Paine studied the Bible closely before his
imprisonment in France during the Revolution. He wrote his book The Age
of Reason partly during his imprisonment and then completed it following
his fortuitous release. This book merits a close study. Thomas Paine points
out many inconsistencies in Biblical narratives, beginning with the two
accounts of Creation in Genesis. He also points out the questionable
nature of the supposed acts of God, such as in Joshua, where ‘God’
brings down the walls of Jericho. This enables Joshua and his band of
murderers to slaughter everything in the city, apart from the prostitute who
helped some of his spies. Can anyone seriously suggest these actions are at
the behest of God? Are these really the acts of a ‘Chosen People’ guided by
As Thomas Paine later pointed out, Moses emerges little
better in Numbers 31, 13 where the armies of Jehovah have returned
from another rape-and-pillage expedition. Having slaughtered all the men,
they bring back as slaves the women and children. Moses angrily asks why the
army saved all the women alive. They all must be killed, he ordains, for
their collective guilt . Blame is easily passed on to others for the
transgressions of the Chosen People, it seems. Apparently ‘Moses’ seems to
have forgotten Exodus 20, 13 and the Sixth Commandment ‘Thou shalt not
kill’. Or did that particular episode from another Book of Moses
involve another ‘Moses’ and another God? So the ‘Moses’ of Numbers
then, acting on a belief in some god, orders all boys to be killed and also
all the women who are not virgins. The remaining virgins can be ‘spared’ and
used as the rabble of soldiers pleases! To use the more genteel language of
Numbers 31,18, ‘the women children who have not known a man keep alive
for yourselves’. This is the morality of so much the Old Testament.
And it is the morality of one of the great Patriarchs. Some apologists have
explained this to me as being because ‘things were different then’. Were
Did these excesses really take place? Was the purpose of
such narratives really to show their enemies how powerful was their ‘god’?
Or does it just show how vengeful and ruthless were the so-called Chosen
People, especially their leaders?
David not only lusts after Bathsheba, but arranges to
have her husband, Uriah, murdered in battle. Is this the action of a good or
decent man? And God’s punishment to David is to kill his first-born with
Bathsheba. Of course, the second-born son is Solomon, the greatest
philanderer in the Bible. Overall, it does not seem much of a
punishment for David. To suggest that there is a lack of even-handedness in
these Biblical accounts would be an understatement.
And so it continues, time and again, through so much of
the Old Testament. Thomas Paine gives many detailed examples. It may
be significant, but despite mentioning this book to priest after priest, I
have yet to meet one who has read The Age of Reason. Perhaps they are
not encouraged to critically question the accuracy and self-consistency of
the Bible. Actually, as a second hand book The Age of Reason
is quite hard to find. I must have seen ten copies of The Rights of Man
before I eventually found The Age of Reason at a cancer charity book
fair on 24th February 2002.
Undoubtedly, there are many universal truths to be found
in the Books of Psalms and Proverbs. And doubtless there is
much that is genuine in the books of prophets, both major and minor. It
seems likely that there is some genuine inspiration there. Many of the
stories have a ring of truth. Whether the Psalms of David have any
more to do with David than the five Books of Moses have to do with
Moses is debatable. As Thomas Paine points out, ‘Moses’ achieved an unusual
and quite remarkable feat in being able to write about his own death - in
hindsight and even points out that no one knows ‘to this day’ where he was
But what god exactly was it that ‘Moses’ was really
worshipping? And it is this question which brings us right back to
The Real Passion of the Christ.
Mary Magdalen gives a strong clue in one particular
sentence. For in that sentence she made a statement which is close to a key
Gnostic heresy. Magazines lately have had many articles about Mary Magdalen
and the Gnostics. New Dawn, Nexus and Rainbow News, for
instance, here in New Zealand have boosted sales with issues focussing on
this interest in Mary Magdalen. There has been much discussion of the
Gnostics. But in only one article, in the New Dawn Special Edition
No.1, have I found any reference to the most important Gnostic heresy, one
not mentioned by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code.
This was in the article by Jason Jeffery under the title
The Gospel of Mary Magdalen. On page 30, he states ‘The supreme
Gnostic heresy was to see Yahweh, the tribal deity of the Old Testament, as
a false god - a vicious and foolish creator of an imperfect world......’
Perhaps the Gnostics were closer to the truth in this
respect, after all. To understand that Yahweh, Jehovah, is a false god who
demands sacrifices, explains the duality of much of the Old Testament.
There is such a conflict in nature between the vicious god depicted in the
passages referred to above, compared to the wise God depicted in so much of
the Prophets, Proverbs, Psalms, etc. And why are there two names for
God - Elohim and Jehovah? No doubt purists will argue about the
multitudinous names for God, especially in the Kabbala, but this is rather a
For it is Mary Magdalen herself, the real Mary Magdalen, speaking through the mechanism of her spirit linking into Jenny’s
mind, who explains very clearly that this argument about these two different
gods was the reason why Christ was put to death.
The full account is to be found in our book Mary,
Daughter of Elohim, the real Gospel According to Mary Magdalen.
He spent his life trying to make men understand. This was the real passion
of Christ. It was no good killing rams, sheep, goats, bullocks or oxen as
sacrifices to Jehovah, however much the priests in the temple encouraged
this. Elohim did not want sacrifices. Elohim wanted men and women to lead
decent, honest lives. That task is so much harder, especially for the rich,
to whom sacrifices come easily.
And this was why Christ was killed. He became a
sacrifice, of sorts. He died the traditional death for those who blasphemed
Jehovah. That was the real Passion of Christ.
Of course, Mary’s account differs from the traditional
Gospel accounts. But remember, these were all written scores of years after
Christ died. And there are not four Gospel sources, but only two. For
Matthew, Mark and Luke are all based essentially on some earlier
lost account, often referred to enigmatically as ‘.....’ Hence these three
are known as the Synoptic Gospels. Only John is different, being much
more symbolic and allegorical in places. John is alone amongst the
Evangelists in describing correctly the events of the first Easter morning.
John describes how Mary visited the sepulchre alone. The other evangelists
added in other women who had not been present on that first Easter Morn. And
John’s Gospel is almost certainly the latest of the four, dating from after
100 AD. Thomas Paine contrasts the conflicting accounts of the first Easter
morning in the different Gospels.
John makes no mention of the Christmas story. And neither
does Mark. Is this because there was really no Bethlehem story? And perhaps
that is why the meaningful coincidences of The Alpha and Omega Codes
revolve around Easter, not Christmas. The latter is notable for its absence,
with one exception. This is because Christ’s death was important, but his
birth was not. Christ died because of the evil of men, if not to pardon them
for it. But the whole Christmas story, however attractive we all find it,
with its beautiful carols, its associations of childhood family and friends,
is nothing more than a fabricated story. It was put forward to enhance the
status of Christ, to prove that Christ’s birth was foretold, that it was
miraculous and that he was indeed born as God incarnate. The confusion in
the writers is evident from Page 1 in the New Testament with Matthew
1. That Gospel begins in verses 2-16 with a long genealogical account of
‘begats’ from Abraham to Joseph.
There are 39 ‘begats’ but in verse 17, we are told that
there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the
Babylonian exile and 14 from the exile to Christ. Given the 40th
‘begat’ would have referred to Christ, there seems to be two generations
short. And what is the significance of the magic number, 14? There is also a
shortage of time. Even 42 ‘begats’, at an average age of 25 years, amounts
to only 1050 years. This barely goes back much beyond Solomon. It is about
another couple of thousand years short, supposedly, of Abraham. And this is
from a period where there were no written records. In 1977, I tried to trace
my family history. I got back as far as about 1700. And we live in a time
with written records. And, in any case, is the father’s name on the Birth
Certificate always true? So, how can such lists as in Matthew 1 be
considered as anything other than pure myth? But it gets worse.
At verse 18, the writer then proceeds to render totally
irrelevant verses 2-16. We learn that Christ was conceived of Mary by the
action of the Holy Ghost. So, in other words, Joseph had no connection with
the birth of Christ.
So, what is that, if it is not confusion? Did God get
mixed up on Page 1 of the New Testament? Or was it men trying to make
things fit with earlier conflicting prophecies? The Messiah had to be born
in the ‘City of David’ of the Line of David, the adulterous murderer - a
noble line of kings. Even Uriah the Hittite is specifically mentioned in
verse 6. And, of course, as sex was regarded as sinful by the Christian
Church and Jesus Christ being God Incarnate could not be associated with
sin, so the need arose for a virgin birth.
The compilers of the Gospels did not worry too much about
the inconsistencies of the account. It is a nice story - ‘so don’t bother me
with the details’. Perhaps it was a committee compromise - the original
committee compromise - a bit of everything. Was it not well said that a
camel is a horse designed by a committee?
We know nothing at all about the birth of Christ. As he
was a man, it is safe to assume it was unremarkable. Mary tells us something
of his life as a child, but mainly of the struggles of his life as a man -
and finally of his death.
But Mary’s story is not just about a distant past. She
was sent to warn us because of the relevance of what she has to say to us
today. She warns us very powerfully of what lies in store for each of us at
the end of our own lives. We can look forward to Heaven or to Hell. It is
the choices we make in this life that determine, ultimately, the choice that
will be made by Another when we die. Mary has tried to reiterate for us the
real message of Christ.
And it was for voicing this message, that sacrifices to
Jehovah were irrelevant, that Elohim did not want sacrifices, that Christ
was put to death..
Over the course of the last seven years, an intricate web
of meaningful coincidences has been woven around my part-time job at a
rendering plant here in New Zealand. For more details of this, see
The Da Vinci Code
article. This job has a curious link to sacrifices in a way, because
these are the cattle sacrificed on the altar of mass
consumerism, so we can eat as and when and how we please, with no
thought to what happens to the bits of the animals the consumer doesn’t
Many of the meaningful coincidences revolve around the
numbers and dials on gauges and recorders at key times at the rendering
plant over the last seven years and the seals on the containers. But the
most important ones revolve around the weighbridge, the great balance that
can take a forty ton truck-and-trailer at the entrance to the works. It is
used to weigh the raw material in and the processed material going out.
So many striking coincidences occurred around Easter 2004
that I concluded that we were being shown that we must get out Mary’s story
now. It has such a relevance to the world today. And somehow we had to
include the experience of Easter 2004. For more of a discussion of all of
this, see The Da Vinci Code.
So the truth of Mary’s words of 1986, the genuineness of
our experience of Mary Magdalen, is demonstrated by the intricate web of
meaningful coincidences woven around our lives since 1986, and particularly
around the rendering plant between 1997 and 2004. God does indeed choose to
remain anonymous, but the power of the coincidences can only be the most
intricate evidence of His hand.
The true Passion of Christ was the desire to make men
understand about God. Instead, men turned him into a god and somehow his
death was deemed to have justified them before God.
Nothing could be further from the truth. No wonder Mary
is so angry and so sad. Ultimately, we will each be weighed in the Great
Balance of Heaven - once - and once only. There is no resurrection. There is
no reincarnation. The signs are clear. We have one chance - and one only.
It is what we do here and now that counts. Make no
mistake, that is the warning Mary gives. For salvation through the
crucifiction is precisely that.
5.06.44 pm 12th August 2004 5.07.03 pm
PS: There are two code numbers specifically for the ‘end
of the world’. One is 229, the other 507. For an explanation of 507, see
The Alpha and Omega Codes. I began writing this a little after 2 pm. Did
Something know the exact time I was to finish it? I have no doubt that this
same Source of Intelligence knows already, to the second, when the End will
come. After all, It chose to ‘give’ me the Twin Towers disaster, nine years
to the day before it occurred.
Having been working on the website, adding page outlines,
I finished a final set of corrections to this at 2.28.57 am on 13th August.
Symbolically, the time is very close now, it would seem, to 229!