You are here: Home Page > Who Is Sitting on the Chair of Peter? > Part 4

Home Page • Contact • Free Information

The early Christians lived according to the teaching and the example given by Jesus of Nazareth.
The disastrous turn of development into a totalitarian cult of idolatry, into the Catholic Church

Following is the fourth part of our series “For the Analytical Mind – Who Is Sitting on the Chair of Peter?”

The first Christian communities were formed from the circle of people that Jesus of Nazareth had gathered around Himself. Early communities were formed without priests, without a hierarchy. There was no one among them who set the tone, much less a kind of pope who said what was right; instead, what emerged at the beginning was a loose affiliation of independent communities. The members of these early communities held everything in common. There is even a passage in the New Testament that expresses this. It says:

Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. (Acts 4:32)

Even if it is only one sentence, it does express how the early Christians lived. They were equal before the law; they had equal rights – including the women. Everyone lived from the work of his own hands. There were living and working communities. In part, there were also housing communities, which produced what they needed to live, and which always gave something of what they had to the poor.

The important characteristic of the early Christians of that time is the fact that they were followers of Jesus, the Christ, because, in their way of thinking and living, they incorporated the teachings of this great Spirit, who is our Redeemer.

They may not have been perfect, but in their daily lives they worked toward putting into practice the spiritual principles that Jesus of Nazareth had taught. They did not hold a communion ritual, but rather ate together, remembering Jesus of Nazareth, who had brought them this teaching. While partaking of the food, they made themselves aware that the Spirit of God is effective in the food; they respected the life that is in all things. They did not have a ritual of baptism. They simply accepted people into their circle. Everything was far more simple and plain and ingenious than what the churches have made of it.

So how did the early Christians of that time treat Mother Earth, the plants and animals? There are passages in the letters exchanged between the first Christians that substantiate the fact that they ate no meat. It can be said with certainty that the members of the early communities for the most part ate no meat.

For example, we can read a text written by Minucius Felix, an early Christian of that time, in a dialog he had with Octavius where he said: “... and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.” 41

We know of James, the brother of Jesus and first leader of the first community in Jerusalem, that it was said of him that “He drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh.” 42  And mentioned several times in the translations, we read, “he wore no garment made of wool, but one of linen.” This would indicate that he was quite deliberate in respecting the life of animals.

We also find in the apocryphal scriptures – meaning those writings that were not included in the Bible – many passages that clearly show that the apostles were vegetarian. In one, it is said of Peter: “…that I use only bread and olives, and rarely pot-herbs;” 43 Or of Matthew: “Matthew partook of seeds, and nuts, and vegetables, without flesh.” 44  And according to the report by [church father] Epiphanius (Against Heresy 78:13,4), the apostle John was also a vegetarian.45

But even the church fathers bore witness to the fact that early Christians ate no meat. For example, John Chrysostom, born in Antioch circa 347 and generally considered the most prominent Doctor of the Greek Church, said:

No streams of blood are amongst them, nor cutting up of flesh, … neither are there unpleasing smells of meat amongst them, … neither runnings and tumults, and disturbances, and wearisome clamors; but bread and water, the latter from a pure fountain, the former from honest labor. But if any time they should be minded to feast more sumptuously, their sumptuousness consists of fruits, and greater is the pleasure there than at royal tables.46

All the early Christians lived from the work of their hands – just as it says in the early Christian regulations of the community:

But if one cannot, or will not, work with his hands, then according to your insight, consider how you can achieve that an inactive Christian does not live in your midst. But if he does not want to do this, then he is one who wants to do business with his Christianity. Be aware of such people.47

From this, it is clear that there were no priests in the first communities.

It is also fitting that no hunters and no soldiers were allowed to join the first communities. They had to give up this occupation before they were accepted into the community. It was clear to the early Christians that killing people and animals violates the laws of God, and they kept the law. And so, many occupations do not correspond to the early Christian concept, as we can derive from the regulations of the community:

The professions and businesses of those who are to be taken into the community have to be examined. Whoever is a sculptor or a painter should be instructed not to paint any pictures of idols; he should stop this or be turned away. Whoever is a charioteer or athletic contestant or a circus fighter or the teacher of these, whoever is an animal fighter, a hunter or an official assistant in fighting games shall stop this or he shall be turned down. If someone is a priest or watchman for idolatry, he should give this up or be rejected. A military official serving as policeman is not allowed to kill. If he is ordered to kill in service, he may not do this. If he does not want to follow these instructions, then he should be turned out. A governor or mayor who is clothed in the dignity of crimson and administers the judicial sword should give this up or he should be rejected.48

All this shows that the early Christians took the divine commandments very seriously and kept them.

Since there were no mediators between the people in the early communities and God – no priests and the like – how was the connection between them and the divine world kept up?

There is a passage in the New Testament, in the second letter of Peter, where this is clearly expressed. There it says:

And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. (2. Pet.1:19)

So the prophetic word was among the first Christians. God spoke to the first Christians through enlightened men and women, and to all those who wanted to hear it, just as God spoke to the Israelites through the great prophets in the Old Covenant. We can also see this in another passage, in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where we read the following:

And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. (1 Cor.12:28)

It is clear that there were certain tasks in the first communities: There were, for one, the healers, who did not heal from themselves, but who helped intensify the self-healing forces in a person seeking healing through their prayers. It was a healing given through prayer and faith, ultimately, through the power of God. There were teachers, who passed on what Jesus of Nazareth had said to the people, and there were prophets.

These tasks in the community were not carried out in an authoritarian manner. Instead, they were based on charisma, that is, on the spiritual radiation of the person. The people who carried out these tasks were measured on whether what was taught through them was also expressed in their daily life, in their behavior. When this was not the case, it became clear that they were not suited for their task.

Then there were the administrators who oversaw the community supplies, those who administered the money and those who carried out the tasks of caretakers or janitors. These administrators were referred to as the “episkopoi,” which is Greek for overseer. It is from this that the word “bishop” emerged, and it was the bishops who later took over power. There were also the elders, the “presbyters,” from which the name “priest” was derived. Thus, those who had principally external tasks, later called priests and bishops, were the ones who took over, and the other three task areas, the prophets, teachers and healers, whose charismatic tasks were far more important for the life of the community from a spiritual point of view, were suppressed.

So how did the so-called elders suddenly work their way into becoming priests? How was this arranged?

In the year 117 after Christ, a certain Ignatius of Antioch sent letters of instruction to other early Christian communities saying: Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.

And then he also writes:

My son, honour thou God and the king. And say I, Honour thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God – of God, inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest.49

The word “bishop” was not an invention of the early communities, but was already a term used for the functions of priests or overseers in pagan cults that existed in the surrounding areas. In the book by Karlheinz Deschner, “Abermals krähte der Hahn,” we can read the following:

In the writings of Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Pindar, the bishops were referred to as the gods, regarded as overseers of the people’s good and bad deeds. Plato and Plutarch also used the word for educators. Itinerant philosophers from Kynos were also called this. But even in the second century before Christ, there were cult officials called bishops. According to the theologian [C.] Schneider, the Christian term for bishop differs from pagan analogies only through the dictatorial power associated with it.50 

This means that the bishops who took over in early Christianity practiced an even stronger dictatorial power than did the bishops of pagan cults. They made a connection with this pagan root and created such an unparalleled ruling power, that one can only rightly speak of a totalitarian cult of idolatry.

Priests and bishops were also in the pagan cults, even popes. The word “papa,” for example, is a derivative of Pater Patrum, the “father of fathers.” He was the highest pope in the Mithras cult, and the whole hierarchy, as it is known in the Catholic Church today, stemmed from these cults of idolatry.

Anyone who reads about early Christian history in the first years after Jesus of Nazareth quickly realizes that cults existed in the whole surrounding area, not only the traditional Jewish cult, but also the cult of Mithras, whose adherents practiced the cult of the graves. There, all consecrations took place on burial grounds, similar to what is done in the Catholic faith today when the follower of Peter allegedly receives his office from the grave of Peter. The Mithras cult not only practiced the cult of the dead, but also sacrificed animals.

All this marked the environment surrounding early Christianity. It would seem that these and other practices from this environment were gradually introduced into early Christianity. But none of it came from Jesus.

Paul played an important role in this, for he was markedly influenced by a Roman polytheism that developed from paganism, and moreover, had never even lived with Jesus of Nazareth. Paul, who never came to know early Christianity firsthand, brought his ideas into early Christianity in a very dominating way. These were, on the one hand, an authoritarian way of thinking, and on another, he put women in second place, which was not the case at all in early Christianity, where many women were active in the capacity of prophets. And among those who followed Jesus of Nazareth, accompanying him on his journeys, there were always many women. But it wasn’t only these two aspects – Paul took a great deal away from early Christianity, bringing his pagan ideas in its stead.

Paul probably brought much more of his pagan ideas into the gospels than is generally thought. In his second letter to Timothy, we can read, for example:

Do your best to come to me soon ... Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me ... When you come bring ... the books, and above all the parchments. (2 Tim.4:9-11)  

This means that Paul was in close contact with Mark, to whom is ascribed the writings of the Gospel of Mark, and with Luke, who is believed to have written the Gospel of Luke.

A second source tells us even more. The Muratorian Fragment, an ancient Latin document presently located in the Abrosian Library of Milan, Italy, was discovered and first printed by Lodovico Antonio Muratori in the 18th century. It is part of a book transcribed 1000 years earlier, and the words from the fragment are generally considered to be part of a document from as early as the second century, making it one of the oldest documents available. It says there that Paul had with him a legal expert – according to another translation, a scholar. He was a physician named Luke. And it reads:

Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh.51 

So neither Luke nor Paul ever experienced Jesus during His time on earth, yet they wrote a gospel, and as it says here, apparently together. So it is quite possible that Paul exerted a much greater influence on the writings of the gospels than is generally assumed.

So how did Paul come to have such authority in early Christianity?

The man Paul felt a certain admiration for the early Christianity he had come to know, but he also had many authoritarian ideas. And in many respects, Paul did not do things as Jesus had taught, for example, in His words: “For whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all” (Mk.9:35). Paul, who did not have the living example of Jesus of Nazareth before his eyes, had a certain drive for power. In one of his letters to the Galatians, for instance, he wrote: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal.1:8). From these words it becomes clear that in his world of thoughts some ideas were quite threatening to those of different mind. His body of thought was closely linked with the ideas and cults from the pagan surroundings. It was in this way that very gradually something emerged that no longer had anything in common with the true early Christianity. Imperiousness and a hierarchy of officials joined together, and a church gradually evolved from early Christianity.

It is said that Paul had a vision and that he received the words of the Lord when Christ appeared to him and said: “I Am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5). According to the story of Paul that has been passed down through the ages, it was at this point that he stopped persecuting this Jesus and joined His ranks.

But even if Paul stopped persecuting Jesus, this still did not mean that he gave up his claim to office, or that he had studied the teachings of Jesus and accepted the teachings of the Lord for himself. Paul went into early Christianity claiming that he had heard the Lord, and this alone gave him the authority to now implement things as he conceived them; soon after, he brought in regulations.

Jesus of Nazareth, for instance, expressly rejected concepts of sacrifice in the sense of having a slaughter victim – something which we have already determined. Yet Paul took this concept from paganism and introduced it into early Christianity. He is also the author of the concept that Jesus of Nazareth had to be sacrificed in so bloody a manner, in order to reconcile God with mankind – a concept that was fully foreign to Jesus of Nazareth, but which, however, Paul introduced.

With this, he basically makes the connection to the blood cults we have already heard about. The well-known historian Karlheinz Deschner also writes about this in his book, “Abermals krähte der Hahn”:

Again and again, Paul preaches about reconciliation and redemption, about the means of atonement “in His blood,” of redemption “through His blood” of peacemaking, “through His blood that was shed on the cross.”  52 

But the second and perhaps even worse falsification of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth took place through Paul when he spoke in the following sense: What is decisive is that you believe in God and in Christ, His Son; the deeds in the following of the Nazarene are not so decisive. Paul taught: “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law ” (Rom.3:28).

This is quite in opposition to the many statements about James, who was called “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,” and who belonged to the core group of the early community in Jerusalem. He said: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?” And he also said: “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” Or the following: “Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?” And lastly: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (Jas.2:14,17,20,24).

And what did Jesus say? The following is quoted from the Bible:

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it. (Mt.7:24-27)

Paul falsified the teachings of Jesus in still many other points: He totally adapted Christianity to the concepts of the Roman Empire, by declaring that a Christian must obey the authority of this world, because it is instituted and instructed by God and does not bear the sword in vain; it is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. (Rom.13:1-4) A teaching that, when we look back, had a devastating effect over the subsequent 2000 years. And yet, Jesus said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt.22:21). Or in another place even: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Of course, the Church has been glad to seize upon the words of Paul, because they justify the death penalty or even war, for which it has often blessed weapons.

On another issue, which is not insignificant, Paul apparently had a big problem with vegetarianism, because the following sentence comes from him: “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience” (1 Cor. 10:25). Of course, this has had devastating consequences right up until today. Billions of animals have been slaughtered because of this sentence in the Bible. But we know and have already heard that the first Christians lived as vegetarians. This statement from Paul stands in crass opposition to what Jesus taught, and also to what the early Christians sincerely endeavored to live.

And so, Paul spoke against Jesus. Jesus’ body of thought was still alive in the early Christians of that time. They wanted to honor Jesus by fulfilling His teachings step by step. So how was it that Paul, with his superstitions, his polytheism, his authoritarian way of thinking, was able to gain a foothold in the first communities?

On the one hand, Paul founded many new communities, which had little contact with the early Christian communities in Jerusalem and in Palestine. For this reason, he was probably able to spread his ideas there quite unchallenged. On the other hand, however, there were also many external factors that weakened early Christianity. Right from the beginning, defamatory statements were spread against the early Christians. It was said that the early Christians killed children or practiced some sort of sexual orgies and the like. Rumors were purposefully spread against them and they were often used as scapegoats. In time, the Roman emperors began to act on these rumors and to persecute the Christians. The result was that the best people in the early communities were the first to fall victim to these persecutions; they were the most steadfast and clearest believers. After such persecutions, people from outside joined the early Christians, bringing their own ideas, which they had taken with them from their pagan rituals. With such pressures from without as well as from within, early Christianity was quite successfully weakened over the course of time.

But it would be interesting to ask: Who spread such rumors? Who initiated the persecution of the early Christians?

From the New Testament it is clear that Jesus of Nazareth was being slandered and accused by the caste of priests of that time. They were saying such things as “that is a son of the devil,” and “he teaches about a false God.” They called Him a sectarian, and the people who followed Him were called the “sect of the Nazarenes.” We know this term from the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 24:5). Later in the Roman Empire, it was again the priests who spread such defamations, hand in hand with governmental authorities. The persecution against the first true Christians was carried out by the imperial administration. It was in alliance with the gossipmongers and calumniators among the caste of priests, so that even then, state and priesthood worked hand in hand against the early Christians.

From early Christian writings during the years 50 to 130 AD, there is even something passed down about this. It comes from St. Justin Martyr, who accused the priests in Jerusalem, writing:

… you selected and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men through all the land to tell that the godless heresy of the Christians had sprung up, and to publish those things which all they who knew us not speak against us.53

“Who knew us not.” This means that foreigners went into the cities and to the authorities, the Roman ruler, for instance, saying: “A sect is in your city; you should watch them.” So priests sent agents out to wherever such early communities developed, so that they could slander them, saying: “Watch out, that is a sect.” Roman law, written on 12 bronze tablets, stated that no new god could be introduced except one approved by the emperor. At that time, the Christian God had not yet been accepted by the emperor, so anyone who stated before the court: “I am Christian,” was destined to die. These men, hired calumniators, managed to bring things to such a point that, above all, the strong, carrying members of the communities were arrested and then martyred and killed.

When we read the letter from St. Justin Martyr, it sounds quite familiar: Apparently, already then, there were agents of character assassination, today we would call them “sect-watch agents.” Such a function has been kept up until today, and has thus been around for about 1900 years.

Early Christianity was broken through gossip, incitement, persecution and certainly through murder and the like, as well. So how is it that the bishops were able to push themselves to the forefront? How did it come to develop into an institution?

The bishops held the longest whip in hand. They managed the money of the community, and of course, gave money only to those who served them. Through this, they were able to expand their position of power. They also strove to take as many new members as possible into the communities. New members meant more income, and more income generated more power. But to take in more members, they had to make compromises on the teachings over and over again. And so, they complied with the spirit of those times, the pagan mystery cults, by seeing to it that the faith being taught in the early communities back then accommodated, for the most part, the indolence of the people. A part of this was a God who forgives all sins – solely by believing. This concept characterized ancient idolatry. It was taken up by Paul and later we find it again in a very pronounced way with Luther.

When the Christians were persecuted, the bishops afterward gave orders to take into the communities as quickly as possible all those who had fallen away from early Christianity by bringing sacrifices to the emperor. Thus, the bishops watered the whole thing down every which way; their striving in every respect was to see that the communities adapted to the authority of the Roman state. One can see this, for instance, by the fact that women were forbidden to have leading functions, just as a woman was not allowed to have a leading position in the Roman state. In the first communities, however, women had often been at the head of the living communities. So in this, too, the bishops turned early Christianity into its opposite.

The wealthiest early community was in Rome. This is very clearly reflected in the letters from early Christianity. When the communities met, their most important function was to help the needy, the poor. It is very moving to read about. The early Christians had to know very exactly such things as: Who lives where? Who is poor or who is a widow? They really had to know the various parts of the city in order to help those who needed it.

The early Christians literally worked to support and carry the poor. The community of Rome alone cared daily for 1500 people in need. The early Christians in Rome also cared for the poor communities like Jerusalem or those in Asia Minor that weren’t as well off. In this way, Rome gained a certain status, because there were more rich citizens in its community. In time, they became arrogant. In the year 190, the Roman bishop – he was already calling himself “bishop” then – denounced all the communities that did not want to accept the Roman Easter customs. These were pagan customs, and although the early Christians in Asia Minor didn’t pay much attention to this, it was clear that the stage was being set for further developments. Rome had begun to pull the strings and to make ultimatums, introducing elements that Jesus never spoke about.

It still took several centuries before Rome really became the ruling power – at least in the western regions of the Church. Until today, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Rome is not the religious capital. But in earliest times, Rome’s claim to being “first” had already started.

At a later date, Bishop Victor I excommunicated all the churches in Asia Minor. This process, whereby pagan priests and idolaters gained ground with their ideas and rituals, began already in the second century after Christ. Already at that time, they started to introduce sacraments. They had altars; after some time the bishop sat on a separate chair, which eventually became a throne.

During the 3rd century, the priests started wearing their own special garments. This came relatively late in the century. They had processions and pilgrimages just like the pagan cults. They began to revere saints. Jesus may have expressed the beatitudes, but He never said that a person should be beatified – this is something totally different. And saints never had a place in the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. For what reason? Every person had – and has! – the possibility to find his own way to God in himself. So why would he need “saints,” who are supposed to be the mediators in heaven? Church holidays were introduced that were celebrated on the same days as pagan holidays. Until today, many important church holidays are pagan holidays. Christmas, for instance, was the celebration of the highest sun god: Sol invictus, the never vanquished sun. Mary’s Assumption on the 15th of August was an important celebration of Diana, the great pagan “mother-goddess.”

So this process, starting very early and then continuing over the course of about 200 years, led to the fact that the original teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, that is, the early Christian teaching, actually turned into a pagan religion. When Emperor Constantine (285-337) then made his appearance, he “finished it off,” naming early Christianity the state religion, once and for all.

And the Church, which had already become largely pagan, fell for this hook, line and sinker. We can see this in its relationship to war and violence. In the book “Abermals krähte der Hahn,” by Karlheinz Deschner, we read for instance:

In the year 313, Constantine guaranteed total freedom of religion to the Christians. In 314 the Synod of Adelate concluded that soldiers who had deserted should be excommunicated. Anyone who threw down his weapons was excommunicated; before that, those who did not throw down their weapons had been excommunicated.54

During the time of Emperor Constantine, there were two equally strong religions: Christianity and the Mithras cult. The latter had 800 churches in Rome. Today, when going through these churches, they all have a central aisle, the benches left and right, an altar up front, steps going up, an arch up above and a basin of consecrated water at the entrance – they all look just like a simple Catholic Church.

The roots of Catholicism in the Mithras cult are very clear to see. One could almost say that the Catholic Church actually developed less from early Christianity than from pagan cults. At most, it took the name and the gospels from Christianity. The Mithras cult also had seven sacraments and even the word “sacrament” was used in this cult.

The Mithras cult was one of many pagan cults practiced at the time of the Roman Empire. And it was most probably introduced to Rome by Roman soldiers returning from Babylonia.

In a book by Johannes Leipoldt, “Umwelt des Urchristentums,” we can read the following:

Mithras is an ancient Iranian god of heaven and light, who was praised in the Avesta, the sacred text of Zoroastrianism, as the guardian of the covenant and the embodiment of those true to the covenant. Since about 400 before Christ, he appears on all inscriptions of royal dynasties.55

It was an ancient teaching of the heavens, a teaching of a god of light, which taught that redemption goes out from this god of light. This belief in Mithras started in Babylon and had all sorts of astrological elements and influences from other cults as well. Influential magicians were its most zealous missionaries. A closer look at these magicians, their robes and how they sit on their throne, shows that it is just like the pope sitting on the throne today, or the bishops and cardinals. They also had various levels of priests, just as we know from Catholicism today.

From this same book, “Umwelt des Urchristentums,” we see that there were many scriptures available, but it is an indisputable fact that for every rank there was a special costume or symbol, the transfer of which was carried out in celebration. Every spiritual office was indelibly connected with insignia, garments and symbols. We also know that in the Mithras cult the sacrament of baptism was celebrated, as well as communion, confirmation and a sacrament of atonement. This may sound quite familiar, but Jesus never instituted such things, nor did He or the early Christians want them. The Mithras cult celebrated a communion as well, not as the early Christians, but as a ritual, just like it is celebrated today in the Catholic Church. The priests were also active in this ritualistic communion.

In addition, the priest spoke the so-called words of blessing, and he also said (quoting from the above-mentioned book): “You have saved the men through the shedding of eternal blood.”  56  The blood of the bull, the ritualistic meal, thus promised the initiated a heavenly existence and resurrection. Here, too, we encounter the sacrifice of animals in the pagan cult of priests. The blood sacrifice, which the Catholic Church adopted, had its origin in the Mithras cult, in which they also believed in the resurrection of the flesh. Jesus never said anything about this, but it is taught today in the Catholic Church. The Mithras cult also knew the Day of Judgment and a lot of other components of the Catholic Church regulations. When we read about it and look at the pictures, what we basically see is pure Catholicism.

Several authors have written that Constantine wanted to avoid the discord that two parallel religions would have brought. For this reason, he decided for Christianity. Many officials and soldiers had imported the pagan Mithras cult into Rome and from there carried it into all countries. The soldiers and officials are, of course, the basis for an empire. On the other hand, Christianity had spread equally among the rich as well as the poor. Both religions were on a par with each other and many researchers say that Constantine simply wanted one religion. He wanted peace in his realm, and somehow closed the door on one, thus bringing about a religious unity, or, rather, a religious mishmash in one. At the Council of Nicaea in 325, he forbade the practice of the Mithras cult. Only one religion was allowed to exist in his empire.

The council of Nicaea in 325 was decisive for the introduction of this unified religion as Emperor Constantine intended. At that time, although early Christianity had pretty much changed into its opposite by then, there still existed a current that tried to connect back to original Christianity. These were the so-called Arian Christians, who based themselves on Origen, a great philosopher and thinker who lived in the 3rd century. During his life he fought against the falsification of early Christianity and against the falsification of the Bible. He recognized that something had become seriously wrong and that early Christianity was actually quite different from what it had become. During the persecution of the Christians by Emperor Decius in the year 250, Origen was badly tortured and died of his injuries 4 years later. But his teaching, his body of thought, continued to spread. One of his followers was, for instance, Arius of Alexandria in Egypt, who disseminated his teachings. He was a contemporary of Constantine, and at the Council of Nicaea in 325, the decision was made by the emperor: Not Arius and his teaching were right, but the Church, as he had encountered it in Rome.

Before going any further into these theological differences, it would be interesting to mention that vegetarianism was often a political issue at these councils and synods. For example, we can read from the year 314 that a decree was written and concluded at the Church Synod of Ancyra, that all priests or deacons who were vegetarians should be excommunicated. Literally, we read:

It is decreed that among the clergy, presbyters and deacons who abstain from flesh shall taste of it … But if they disdain it, and will not even eat herbs served with flesh, but disobey the canon, let them be removed from their order.57 

“Disobey the canon” implies that eating meat was a rule for anyone, even an important rule for being considered for the priesthood in Catholicism. This is all the more astonishing, considering the fact that all of early Christianity had been vegetarian. And to guarantee that all future members of the Catholic Church actually eat meat, new members had to speak out a curse, a curse against the Nazarenes. It sounds incredible, but this citation is substantiated. New members had to speak the following words: “I curse the Nazarenes, the stubborn ones, who deny that the law of sacrifice was given by Moses, and who refrain from eating living creatures, never offering sacrifices.” 58 

It becomes rather clear that still enormous spiritual battles were taking place in the 4th century, a struggle about what the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth really were; and the falsification of these teachings was already very, very far advanced. This was demonstrated at this council by the theological matters of dispute that were up for debate there.

One of these was on the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God or whether he is God himself. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and Confessor and Doctor of the Church, defended the homoousian formula that states that Christ is of the same substance as the Father.59  For a Roman like Constantine this was familiar territory because the Romans only knew one principle god – Jupiter – and at most, perhaps an incarnation of a god. This is why, in the interest of the unification of his state religion, Constantine decided for the belief that Jesus of Nazareth, that is, Christ, is “the true God from true God,” 60 just as it can be read today in the Nicene Creed. Arius, on the other hand, represented the view of the early Christians, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, who is filled by God, but not identical with God. This became an important change of course introduced by a Roman emperor.

Today’s Original Christians know through the word of God, the prophetic word for our time, that Jesus of Nazareth came to this earth as the Son of God in order to bring the Kingdom of Peace, and that He was filled by the Spirit of His Father – by God.

Arian Christianity continued to exist for several centuries. But the faith of the Roman Catholic Church is still influenced today by the conclusion of the council decreed by Constantine, where it said, that Christ is “of the same substance of the Father, the true God from true God.”

It may seem like theological sophistry to argue about who Jesus really was. But the real issue here is the fact that the Church wanted to make its faith as simple as possible. Seen from the point of view of the spirit of the times back then, there was a tendency in the pagan cults to have only one god, a god who absolves all sins if a person performs all rituals in the right way. By then, polytheism had lost some ground. So Christianity should have only one God. To this end, one God was created who was portrayed in three people: God-Father, God-Son, and the Holy Ghost. But the belief of the first Christians was different: There is only one God and Christ, the Son of God, incarnated in Jesus of Nazareth, who brought the people the divine laws of life, and the supporting and guiding spark of Redemption, the Redeemer-power. Because of this, every person has the possibility to experience Christ in himself and to find his way to God through these divine laws, and not through external rituals. That is quite a difference.

Jesus was filled by God and was not God, Himself. He was the Son of God, whom the Father sent, and who was filled by the Spirit of the Father. This vitalized the early Christianity of that time, and vitalizes today’s Original Christianity. In all clarity, a mystery cult is a pagan cult. Constantine was shaped by the pagan cults. And ultimately, the actions of the caste of priests of today are an inheritance from Constantine’s pagan cult, which was added to the belief in the one God.

This is how it all ended up. Whatever did not come from the Mithras cult came from the cults of Athis, of Dionysus, Hercules, Osiris or Isis. There were many cults that moved in a similar direction; and Constantine himself had lived in this type of cult thinking and therefore supported it. Although he made Christianity the state religion in name, he actually brought these pagan cults into it. Constantine himself was pagan; he still consulted oracles and still had himself printed on coins as a sun god. It was also the custom of that time for the emperor to have himself called a god and people also had to make sacrifices to him as a god. Constantine also was not baptized during his lifetime; it was only at his deathbed that he let himself be given the sacrament of baptism, not by a Roman Catholic priest, but by an Arian Christian. But none of this is of relevance to the Church. Until today, it continues to revere him. Constantine was a cruel person, a person who waged wars, who had his captive opponents thrown to the bears and had his own family killed. But none of this matters to the Holy See! Instead, it reveres Constantine as if he were a saint, because he made the Church into a state religion, and that is what counts for the Church.

Constantine also gave the Church enormous privileges. He had pagan temples dispossessed and turned over to the Church. He freed the clergy of most taxes. He secured the income of the clergy. He gave them huge presents. And right up until today in Germany, the Church is extensively supported by the state. The salaries of bishops and cardinals are paid by the state, to the tune of 8-10,000 Euros per month! The education of theologians, the religion classes in public schools, all this is paid by the state. The churches are also exempted from many, many taxes. When we add all this together, we come to the enormous sum of 14 billion Euros annually in subsidies to the churches by the German state. And this is what the Church loves.

We still have a state church today that is more like a church for government leaders. For who is it that makes pilgrimages to the Holy See? It is the government leaders, who may shake the hand of the head of the Catholic Church, the hand of the one who represents the Chair of Peter.

Over the course of time, the Holy See introduced other laws that are just as terrible as those from the pagan cults – laws that are absolutely contrary to the teachings of Jesus, the Christ.

Perhaps it would be interesting to take a closer look at all the dogmas, rites and cults of today’s state, that is, ruling, religion, to find out where the cults came from, where the dogmas and rites came from. In this way everyone can recognize whom he is serving: a Constantinian state religion or Jesus, the Christ?

next / return to Table of Contents