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 Salvation

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 God?

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 they really?

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 buried.

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 red herring.

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 40^th ‘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 want.

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 12^th 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!