Jesus' Talk brings two women conversing about Jesus. One of them claims to be chaneling him, basically. I would think I would know the difference, but I am unable to tell if the woman inside of the computer was receiving communications from beyond or not. From here, it seems to me that she wasn't, quite sincerely.
One point that I notice, which we learn even in security courses in Australia, is that her mouth was pressing like Verônica Pinheiro's mouth after she stole my documents in Rio and I went there to confront her together with Rogério because she claimed it had been him. Patricia Petersen's mouth pressed just in the same way when I met her in front of her college in 2001/2, the day I described on another blog post. I then think this should be the way prostitutes show that they are lying (my definition of prostitute: Once more, see my other blog posts).
At a certain stage, she clearly does not know what to do and she then talks about Jesus' heat or something and how he should not come any closer to her. She then takes a long time to answer the question, what may mean that she was deciding what to say, rather than chaneling something. The question was about whether Jesus was here to learn something or not. The hesitation also appears when the question is about his skin color, and this was earlier on in the recording.
These are signs that everyone can see.
There are also other signs of deceit: For instance, I will bet this woman is a Buddhist. This is because the theory she presents seems to align with Buddhism. In this case, there is at least more chance of it all not being genuine.
Several issues appear in terms of the liturgy. One of them is that the woman talks about Jesus calling God God, but he usually called God Father instead. That could be a basic point to tell us that this is not genuine. Another issue is Jesus calling us children. He referred to God as a father and to him as a son, so that we would not be his children: We would at most be his siblings if he were ever speaking to us like that, I reckon.
Other issues appear that are more critical, such as that Jesus would have had seven kids and two would have died. Died? Could he not raise them from the dead, his own kids?
Jesus had a true love and that was Magdalene, according to her, but one true love means more than one love. At that time, men seemed to have only one love in general, so that this is incompatible with the culture at that time, on top of all else.
She says that Jesus is amongst us and is called Mona and is living in India. I would think that anyone from India who seems to be holy would be in the press almost immediately. She says herself that his presence makes her feel heat all over her, so that his presence in India would have the same impact on people, is it not? If they cannot get close to him, how can he actually live somewhere as a normal person, who would say be married at a certain stage of his past or present lives?
On the other hand, some things make a lot of sense: that Jesus was conceived through normal sex, that he receives us after death, etc.
There is also one more point: She says that Jesus liked that the interviewer did not come to them because of money, belief or curiosity. He liked that she did not come to them because of belief? That sounds really odd!
The Bible is OK but should not be used in the literal sense was another message from Jesus, she says: The Bible should not be OK, since it was all manipulated and edited in a very criminal way by the time of Inquisition, if nothing else. Once she says that Jesus said that The Bible is OK, however, she is committed to accepting the truths in it, including that Jesus acquired his human identity from being in the belly of his mother, who had conceived him in a holy way, and that did not involve sexual intercourse.
Right or wrong don't exist? Jesus! Yes, Jesus... . That is not possible because, for instance, once more it conflicts with the liturgy. Do you remember when Christ thrashed the temple because they were selling stuff? Do you remember him stopping the public stoning of Mary? That obviously meant that he thought that there was right and wrong, both of them. Besides, she herself admits that Mary Magdalene was with Jesus, and therefore that at least that biblical story was true. In this case, he did stop the stoning and therefore he classified that as wrong, what then proves that he did believe that there was right and wrong, both of them.
All in all, we have here a very brave woman, a true atheist, I reckon. Considering that the Catholic people think that Jesus is God, she could lose her life, according to The Bible, just because she has referred to God in a very disrespectful way together with her interviewer. A lot daring, a lot brave, and probably a full-on atheist.
At a certain stage, I hear a guy in the background saying this is not going to work, I believe, and therefore he was basically saying that they are all crooks, but the lines that advertise the video say that Jesus spoke in it instead, like that we could hear his voice. As another point, Jesus would be alive in India, but would need her to pass his message? Isn't that a bit crazy? He is Jesus, first of all. Why her would be a good question too, but, if he is alive, why a medium, for God's sake? Then, if he is a woman in India, why does he show up as a man to her? When he shows up, he does not look in the way he looked by the biblical time either, so what is going on here? He still has a beard, according to her, but he is an Indian woman called Mona right now. Why would it be the case that the interviewer would not ask this most obvious question: Why do you need her to channel what you think? Don't you have enough power to speak to us directly? What about the Holy Trinity? Things like that. I think they are all crooks, all of them, and we have no chance of having anything else. Were the interviewer genuine, she would ask these obvious questions: If you are an Indian woman right now, why do you present yourself like this to us? Why you don't use her body to communicate with us as you did before, in year O? She does not ask these questions, and therefore they are all crooks, so that ALSO the interviewer is a crook, not only them.
I would think that we should never play with forces we don't know well, and we should never mess up with other people's religions: If we say something, that it at least looks slightly convincing, is it not? This is, I reckon, to the side of the total heresy.