An Overview of the Divine Love Teachings
(excerpted from the Gospel of God’s Love – Old Testament Sermons)
God is Love. Simple words, yet we could spend an eternity learning the meaning behind them. In these three words, John the apostle tells us something of profound importance: that love is far more than just a “warm and fuzzy” feeling. In his simple statement, John suggests that there is a love which lies beyond “unconditional acceptance,” even beyond those lofty expressions of human love involving personal sacrifice for the beloved. Very succinctly, John states that there is a love so holy, sublime, and majestic as to be “synonymous” with the name of God.
In the Padgett messages, Jesus affirms that he was and is the “Messiah of God,” but as he spells out the meaning and significance of the term, we find it to denote something very different from what has been commonly accepted through the centuries. Jesus explains that his simple mission as the Messiah was and is to proclaim to humankind that a gift is being offered them by God. This gift, given to anyone who sincerely asks for it, is God’s love, which Jesus describes as the actual essence of God’s soul. This gift of God’s love is given to us in response to our own sincere desires and prayers for its bestowal – the amount that we receive being in direct proportion to the frequency and sincerity, or “soulfulness,” of our prayers. This divine love is conveyed into the human soul through the agency of what is known as the holy spirit, its reception into the soul gradually causing a transformation, or “new birth”—the end result of which is a soul conscious of its own immortality, and at-one with God.
As the Messiah, Jesus was blessed with the privilege of being the first person ever to receive this new birth, and his earthly mission was not only to proclaim the availability of this gift, but also to demonstrate tangibly the wonderful results of this divine transformation.
During his short ministry on earth, Jesus performed his mission admirably, teaching people to pray for the wonderful gift of God’s love, while manifesting, through his abilities as a healer, the “miraculous” evidences of this love within his own soul. Jesus traveled from town to town preaching his gospel, explaining the availability and nature of this love with parables in his effort to help people understand and appreciate the value of this supremely powerful—and yet completely “invisible”—gift.
The entire New Testament is filled with references to this gift, this love, this transformation. But then, in addition to this gospel of God’s love, we find in the New Testament a “second gospel”—the gospel of Jesus’ crucifixion.
We make a distinction between these “two gospels” for two reasons: First, because, with the exception of a few lines where Jesus alludes to the “necessity” of his coming death, all references in the New Testament to the “second gospel” of Jesus’ crucifixion are interpretations and explanations supplied by others, after Jesus’ death. Simply put, this was not the gospel preached by Jesus, but was rather a gospel preached about Jesus. But most importantly, we make a distinction between these two gospels because we understand them to be, on several levels, different, distinct, and wholly incompatible with each other.
As astonishing as it may be, Jesus states in the Padgett messages that his gospel had absolutely nothing to do with his crucifixion, and that all doctrines pertaining to his death, “sacrifice,” and vicarious atonement were interpretations and embellishments added after his death by followers who sought to make sense of the “impermissible” death of their Messiah.
We say “impermissible” because there were in Jewish culture at that time some very well established rules as to how a claimant to the title of “Messiah” would demonstrate his legitimacy, and according to those rules, the true Messiah would overthrow the Romans, not be put to death by them. These followers could not conceive of Jesus’ death as simply the result of the human treachery of those barbarous times, but instead felt driven to make sense of this unexpected turn of events by attributing it to a “divine plan.” Even though Jesus had repeatedly explained to them that his kingdom was “not of this world,” their materially-based minds, conditioned by centuries of Hebrew “Messianic expectation,” could not let go of the belief that their Messiah must establish and reign over an earthly kingdom.
Jesus explains in the Padgett messages that, in keeping with these later interpretations of his death, the authors and editors of the books of the New Testament “reframed” the narratives of his life to conform to their ideas. Words were placed in Jesus’ mouth, and Hebrew Scripture was misquoted or quoted out of context, in order to substantiate this conception of Jesus as a “sacrificial lamb.”
Many Christians will no doubt consider these statements to be preposterous—or worse, heresy, and the work of the devil—but hopefully some will read further at this site, and then get out their Bibles and visit their libraries for some serious research and rereading—not to mention soul-searching—before reaching a decision regarding these claims.
While contemplating this idea of two conflicting gospels, consider this as the crux of their disagreement: On the one hand, Jesus’ gospel repeatedly refers to God’s love and salvation as a gift from a caring and merciful Father, while on the other, the “gospel” of Jesus’ crucifixion speaks of a “price” which first had to be paid for this salvation—a “ransom” to satisfy a wrathful God.
Now, while noting the profoundly different characters of the gods in these two gospels, consider the question: How can one be required to pay for a gift?
If Jesus “paid” for this gift, then it was not a gift; or else one would have to say that it was a gift from Jesus, not God. If Jesus is God, as some believe, then it would appear that God was “required” (by whom, we would have to ask) to pay Himself for His own gift.
Jesus’ gospel, as related in the Bible, clearly teaches of a gift of salvation which is given by God, and so we will simply point out that a gift, by definition, cannot require payment. In addition, we will point out that God, being the Owner of the entire universe, is certainly in a position to bestow gifts, and absolve supposed debts owed to Him, as He sees fit. And so we will suggest that the most logical explanation for these divergant gospels is the one given by Jesus in these messages – that this doctrine of the “vicarious atonement” was a later interpretation, added to Jesus’ gospel, inspired by existing Hebrew and pagan beliefs and customs.
A student of the Bible also cannot help but note the fact that Jesus, while still very much alive, went from town to town preaching his gospel. It is not difficult to surmise that this gospel did not concern his future death—or any future event, for that matter, since most of his preachings recorded in the New Testament are given in present tense, and with barely a reference to the topic of death. Jesus explains the new birth to Nicodemus as something which is available for him to experience; he describes the holy spirit as something which Nicodemus can feel, even though his mind might not be able to explain how. All of Jesus’ descriptions of the “Kingdom of Heaven” were clearly attempts to explain something that was present and applicable to his listeners in the “here and now.” As Jesus said to his townsfolk at the temple in Nazareth, “Today is this prophecy fulfilled in your ears.”
And so, if we were to rephrase some words of the Bible to more accurately represent the truth of salvation as we now understand it, we might say:
…for God so loved the world that He gave us His divine love, that whosoever receive it should not perish, but have everlasting life. And He chose, as His Messiah and Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, to proclaim the glad tidings of the availability of this great gift…