The dictatorship of the Holy See is based
on the pagan religion of the priests.
Blatant contradictions in the Old Testament

This is the first in a series of radio programs from the Original Christians in Universal Life. The Original Christians are neither Catholic nor Protestant-Lutheran, the two institutionalized churches in Germany. Instead, they are people who base themselves on Christ, who, 2000 years ago as Jesus of Nazareth, brought a very practical and ingenious teaching, the application of which leads people into happiness, freedom and peace.
Whether you, dear reader, find something in common between Jesus of Nazareth - the young man who, as a spiritual revolutionary, was a man of the people - and the Holy See with all its dusty rites, dogmas, cults and pomp, we leave to you.

If it were up to the Holy See, God would have to be silent, because already in the year 2000, Mr. Ratzinger stated in the declaration "Dominus Jesus":1 "... we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." And Mr. Ratzinger knew why he was writing this, because God, the Eternal, has never let himself be muzzled by some self-appointed representative. At all times, God has taken people and made them into His speaking instruments. And so today God speaks to all people again, through Gabriele, His prophetess and spiritual ambassador.
What does God have to say today about the Holy See? The living word of God exposes the Holy See. If you would like to, you can receive free information on this by simply writing to:
Universal Life, P.O. Box 5643, 97006 Würzburg, Germany.

Our roundtable discussions are broadcast under the title: "For the Analytical Mind - Who Is Sitting on the Chair of Peter?" Below, you will find the complete text of the first program.


The world experienced a long drawn-out media spectacle in Rome during the first months of 2005. First with the death of the former occupant of the Chair of Peter and then, with the inauguration of his successor. During the pompous festivities, the name of "Jesus" or "Christ" was discernible only sporadically. Instead, great pageantry, pomp, resplendence and riches were placed on display.
One result of such a glittering display was that questions were raised which we will try to answer: What is actually behind this Chair of Peter, also known as the Holy See, which has let itself be so continuously celebrated for so long in Rome? How did this Holy See portray itself in the past? What are its intentions? And: What should we still expect from it?


Do the Old and New Testaments teach
"... firmly, faithfully and without error..."
the truth?

In addressing this question, a declaration could help us, which the current occupant of the papal chair, Mr. Ratzinger, issued in the year 2000, under the title "Dominus Jesus." In this document, he wrote the following about the Bible:
Taking up this tradition, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council states: For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf.Jn.20:31;2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet.1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. These books firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.2
So, Mr. Ratzinger bases the authority of the Holy See on the Bible. Now, many people are aware of this, too, but how many people actually know what is in the Bible?


A priesthood of pagan origin.
Priests should pacify the gods.
It was always a matter of external acts:
ritualistic cults, magical practices,
animal and human sacrifices

Many of Jesus' words have been passed down in the New Testament. In Matthew, for example, we read:
But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. (Mt.23:8-9)
From preceding verses we know it was the scribes and Pharisees who had themselves called rabbi. According to present-day usage, the scribes are today's priests, pastors, bishops, cardinals, even the so-called "Holy Father," whom we should not call Father, according to Jesus.
Why do we say this? To become a priest, a person first has to become a scholar of the scriptures, a scribe, as it were. All theologians study the Old and New Testaments and know the Bible quite thoroughly. And so, the scribes of today are the theologians, and to become a priest or minister, a person first has to be a theologian.
According to His words in the New Testament, Jesus, the Christ, was against the scribes. Why is this? Since theology is an invention of church institutions, it can be said that as a whole, God has no place in theology; instead, it is merely a work of doctrine of the Church.

Jesus himself said that the scribes closed heaven off from the people, because they constantly pointed to the work of doctrine available at that time. (Mt. 23:13) And the scribes of today point to a work of doctrine that has continued to grow over the centuries, and has become so complicated and contradictory that a person needs years just to be able to take it all in and intellectually understand it. The teaching of Jesus, on the other hand, was simple. Jesus wanted the people to develop a living relationship with God, with their heavenly Father.

Priests, scribes, and all those against whom Jesus spoke, existed even before Abraham. Since the Stone Age, early religions have cultivated ritualistic cults and magical practices. This is also true of the so-called advanced civilizations. For example, in ancient Egypt, the people revered a multiplicity of gods; and the priests, who had studied the scriptures in the writings that had been passed down at that time, were responsible for carrying out sacred acts. These were always religions of an externalized nature, in which the "god" was supposed to be appeased or made lenient through rituals. And so, these religions had nothing in common with an inner change in a person; instead they were always based on external actions.
At Abraham's time, there were special cults and festivities for the many different deities, who were believed to dwell in their temples. These, in turn, were served by human servants. And the rulers of the cities were generally acknowledged as the representatives on earth of the gods.
In Mesopotamia, the interpretation of omens and fortune-telling were important components of religion. Animal sacrifices were supposed to appease the gods and there are indications that the Phoenicians - descendants of the Canaanites - sacrificed children, often their first-born. All the rulers of the Mesopotamian region considered themselves the representatives of the gods; and the majority of their duties consisted of the practice of sacramental ceremonies that were supposed to ward off evil and bring the favor of the gods. Today we call these practices a form of paganism, of idolatry.
Usually, the centers of these ritualistic practices were the temples, although religious celebrations also took place in holy grottoes or on consecrated hills. The gods were present in these temples as statues and the priests were responsible for their care and provision. Many, many functions were carried out by the priests, such as administration, invocation, exorcism, interpreting omens, sacrifices, and so on.

The true prophets of God as well
as Jesus warned against the priests

Many years after Abraham, the concept of appeasing the gods through animal sacrifices, but also through human sacrifices, was still prevalent. This is one of the reasons why the prophets of God repeatedly warned the people of Israel about the priests. For instance, in the fifth book of Moses, we read:
You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. (Dt.12:31)

And the prophet Jeremiah said: "The priests did not say, 'Where is the LORD?' Those who handle the law did not know me ..." (Jer.2:8). Here, we have an indirect answer to the question of why Jesus was generally against the scribes: Because the scribes, as theologians, believed in the literal word. And yet, we read: "For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor.3:6). In addition, the priests were always the ones responsible for sacrifices.
But if God did say what we just quoted from the prophets, then it is a direct contradiction to what God allegedly had said through Moses in terms of priestly robes or burnt offerings and sacrifices or animal slaughter, war and killing people. For example, Moses is supposed to have said:
Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two lambs a year old, day by day, regularly. One lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight. (Ex.29:38-39)

On the other hand, the prophet Jeremiah passed on the word of God with the following:
For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. (Jer.7:22)
So at one time God allegedly said through Moses that animals should be sacrificed every day, and another time God says through Jeremiah that He never commanded any such thing.

The Old Testament is littered with such contradictions.
In another example from the Old Testament, it is written that "God" said the following through Moses: "The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the Lord in front of the curtain of the sanctuary" (Lev.4:6).
But through Isaiah, He said: "When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood" (Is.1:15). Or, for example, the following: The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them: "Speak to the people of Israel, saying: From among all the land animals, these are the creatures that you may eat" (Lev.11:1-2). And then through Isaiah, God said the exact opposite: "Whoever slaughters an ox is like one who kills a human being" (Is.66:3).
Since both statements cannot be true at the same time, which is right?


Jesus of Nazareth was for the animals.
He commanded that no meat be eaten,
no animal be killed

But what about Jesus? What did Jesus say about killing animals?
When Jesus cleared out the temple, He went through the courtyard with a whip and set free the animals that the merchants were selling for the sacrifices, according to Old Testament tradition. In Matthew, however, we read the words of Jesus: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice. For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mt.9:13).
Another incident in the life of Jesus also gives a hint. Many of the disciples of Jesus were fishermen and when Jesus called them, He said: "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men" (Mt.4:19). Perhaps He was implying that in following Him, they would no longer catch fish. Certainly in many of the early Christian scriptures that are outside the Bible, countless examples are given, written in many different ways, about how Jesus stood in relation to the animals. These give witness and confirm His call to the people to eat no meat, to slaughter no animal. That these scripts are not found in the Bible is based on the decisions of the priests responsible for putting the Bible together, and not on the truth. And when we recognize that today, the pope wears a ring depicting a fisherman drawing fish onto the land, then we certainly know which point of view is favored by the Church - that which corresponds to the old conceptions of killing animals.


The credibility of the books of Moses
in question. Texts first written by priests
during the 6th century before Christ

But getting back to the contradictions referred to earlier, according to the Bible - which Catholic concept holds to be binding and holy - there should be no priests and no father, that is, no "holy father." But the Catholic Church has both priests and a person whom it refers to as "holy father." Of course, it could be argued that since the Old and New Testaments are allegedly holy and imparted by God, priests have existed ever since the time of Moses. In the books of Moses it is actually written that God allegedly appointed priests through Moses. This was supposed to have happened while Moses was on Mt. Sinai where he received the Ten Commandments. But did this really happen? Is this credible?

At the universities they teach theologians, that is, the pastors and priests, that a large part of the books of Moses was actually written by priests. The five books of Moses were eventually compiled from several different currents of scriptures, one of which is the so-called "P document," which assumes a priestly author because it adds material of major interest to the priesthood and from a priestly perspective. The date of the appearance of the "P document" is hotly debated among scholars, but there is general agreement that this work appeared somewhere during 770-580 BC. For all intents and purposes, they practically projected their cults, their priestly beliefs, back into the time of Moses with these writings.3
Most likely, influences from ancient Babylon were also contained in it, since polytheism and a caste of priests with special robes and sacrifices, prevailed in that culture.
That the books of Moses cannot have come from Moses can simply be taken from the fact that at the end of the five books of Moses we can read, "Moses was one hundred twenty years of age when he died" (Dt.34:7). He cannot possibly have written this line himself.

It would be interesting to examine which aspects of all the rigmarole of the priesthood in the Old Testament, which God allegedly prescribed, come up again under the Holy See today. We can draw parallels, for example, between what was allegedly prescribed and pre-determined in the Old Testament for the appointment of priests, for their vestments and for their sacrificial gifts, and how this compares with the way it is done in the Catholic Church today. And a sidelong glance at the pagan rituals on which the whole thing is based could lend considerable enlightenment to the facts of the matter.


"Holy garments" for the priests,
an instruction from God or a demonic
insertion to secure the priests' privileges
and a special position among the people?
Striking contradictions to the statements
of Jesus

What vestments were allegedly necessary for the priests can be read in Exodus:
And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. You shall speak to all who have ability, whom I have endowed with skill, that they make Aaron's garments to consecrate him for my priesthood. (Ex.28:2-3)
Can a person become holy via his garments? And if there is only one Holy One, and it is God, our Father, who is in heaven, then what is the meaning of such things as "holy garments"?
One explanation could be that under the outer "façade," under the magnificent robes, the person who wears these robes can hide what he truly thinks behind such a mask. The prophets have said many things in relation to this, for example, "As robbers lie in wait for someone, so the priests are banded together" (Hos.6:9). From this, we can deduce that what often lies behind the pointed display of such festive robes and all the rigmarole is simply naked violence.
Another aspect could be that such garments underline the special status of the person. He is raised above the masses and, with this, visibly makes known that only he can be the intermediary between God and man.
The scribes have always dressed differently than the people or even the prophets sent by God. Whoever becomes aware of what God is supposed to have said through Moses about a priest's vestments would actually have to place Jesus, the Christ, in question - because "God" is saying something quite different than Jesus, who rejected the flaunting appearance of the caste of priests. So, is the one who spoke in the books of Moses truly God or is this whole thing a demonic treatise on the prerogatives, the privileges, of the caste of priests of that time? Or was Jesus, the Christ, a false prophet? For He spoke differently than this so-called "god" in the Old Testament.

Why don't we read about what God allegedly said in terms of how a priest should dress, at the same time calling to mind how the priests of today attire themselves. This may make it easier to recognize what is behind the Holy See. For example:
These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests. They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen. And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and of fine twined linen, skillfully worked. It shall have two shoulder pieces attached to its two edges, so that it may be joined together. And the skillfully woven band on it shall be made like it and be of one piece with it, of gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen. (Ex.28:4-8)

This text continues along these lines for several pages. Anyone who is interested can read it in Exodus, the second book of the so-called "books of Moses."
When we read this, it makes us wonder, if for no other reason than to question why Aaron and the priests should be dressed this way, while Moses himself, the great prophet, is dressed like any one of us? In this, we can clearly see contradictions between priests and prophets already beginning with the books of Moses! On the other hand, when we refer to the New Testament and read what Christ, as Jesus of Nazareth, then said to the priests at that time, He used very clear words, for example:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Mt.23:23-24)
And a little further on:
For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Mt.23:27-28)
This is how Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, spoke. And then God, His Father, supposedly said in the books of Moses that one should dedicate holy garments for these Pharisees and scribes?
It continues along the same vein in the Old Testament, in Exodus:
You shall set in it four rows of stones. A row of sardius, topaz, and carbuncle shall be the first row; and the second row an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond; and the third row a jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst; and the fourth row a beryl, an onyx, and a jasper. They shall be set in gold filigree. (Ex.28:17-20)

Who is speaking here? What kind of a "God" is this, who would give such detailed descriptions of how ostentatiously garments should be prepared for a person who will appear afterward as a priest? This is not only odd; it is downright pagan. And even today, we can still witness this pagan to-do, this pomp of idolatry, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the word of God through the prophets of the Old Testament. And it is exactly the opposite of the word of God through His prophetess of the present time.

God, our Father, spoke very clear words through Gabriele in April 2005:
Jesus, who in the flesh was the son of a carpenter, dressed like the people. And the prophets whom I sent to the people dressed like the people. No heavenly being that ever became a human being to proclaim My message as a human being robed himself in crimson, gold and silk.4

It looks like much was adopted from the Old Testament concerning the priests' vestments and the whole frippery, but is it any different with the consecration of priests? In Exodus, where Aaron was commanded to slaughter, we read it described in the following way:
Then you shall kill the bull before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and shall take part of the blood of the bull and put it on the horns of the altar with your finger, and the rest of the blood you shall pour out at the base of the altar. (Ex.29:11-23)
And yet Jesus, the Christ, in a Gospel that exists outside of the Bible said:
Verily, I say to you, for this end have I come into the world, that I may put away all blood offerings, and the eating of the flesh of the beasts and the birds that are slain by men.5

It has already been mentioned that through Isaiah, God said in the Old Testament: "He who slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man ..." (Is.66:3). With this, animal and human being are placed on equal footing: To kill life is not in the spirit of God.
And repeating what Jeremiah said in the Old Testament:
For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt - precisely the time we refer to in reference to Moses - I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. (Jer.7:22)
God also announced through Jeremiah: "Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me" (Jer.6:20). And He speaks similarly through Amos: "Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them" (Am.5:22).


Sacrificial rituals today?
Inspired by satanic energies,
particularly the great religious holidays
today are unparalleled feasts of slaughter.
Condoned by the Holy See,
millions of animals are also
"sacrificed" in animal experiments

But the question as to whether it is any different today is still open. We have seen parallels in the vestments. Is it any different today where animals are concerned? Maybe animals aren't officially sacrificed anymore in a ceremony, but where do those who like to appear on television go afterward, and what do they then eat? Even in the Old Testament, they gave God only the "inferior parts," the entrails. The priests themselves always ate the "good pieces." Has this changed today?

In the Old Testament, for instance, we read:
And the right thigh you shall give to the priest as a contribution from the sacrifice of your peace offerings. Whoever among the sons of Aaron offers the blood of the peace offerings and the fat shall have the right thigh for a portion. (Lev.7:32-33)
It seems one should make an offering of blood and fat and the priest eats the thigh! An analytical mind will surely ask how it is today, when a reverend pastor or priest or even a high-ranking church dignitary is invited to such feasts.
At the inauguration of the new pope, a butcher gave every believer present the possibility to bring an "animal sacrifice," namely, a "Ratzinger bratwurst" - 100 grams for 85 cents.6 And that is only the tip of the iceberg, for at the same time millions of animals are sacrificed every minute for the lusts of the palate or in experimental laboratories, which are also expressly condoned by the Holy See, that is, by today's caste of priests.7 And the big holiday celebrations - Easter and Christmas - are the greatest slaughter feasts of so-called Christianity. Are not these a kind of sacrificial ritual? To whom are they sacrificed, these innocent animals? Who eats them? Clearly it is the priests and all those who copy them.
It is certainly not God, but rather the god of the underworld who promotes and supports such things. We can describe the god of the underworld as satanic energy, or simply as Satan. It is the adversary forces that have always tried to destroy the positive that God, the great prophets and Jesus of Nazareth brought into the world, striving to transform it into its opposite.
God, the true All-One, is always the same, millennia ago, today, tomorrow - in all eternity. The Church has always aligned itself with the pagan religions of the priests, deciding against Christ

These statements would surely trigger protests from the churches. The contradictions that we have pointed out are apparent. But the churches also teach that earlier, God commanded it a certain way, for example, in relation to the priests' garments or the rules about sacrifices, that it simply was a part of earlier times; this is how He made His will known at that time. And then, they would say, the change came with Jesus. Since Jesus, these sacrifices are no longer necessary and special garments would also no longer be absolutely necessary - although they most probably still like to wear them. For "the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New," 8 so reads church doctrine, and with this, a certain continuity is guaranteed. On the whole, it is simply a change that has taken place in the will of God. This is what the churches teach, and what would most probably be given as answer.
Yet something entirely different can be read in a document of the Church. In a book entitled, "The Teaching of the Catholic Church as Contained in Her Documents," we read the following: "For there is only one God, who created nature, who is at the helm of history and who is the author of the Sacred Books. And he cannot be in contradiction to himself." 9

Who is now contradicting whom? Is Jesus contradicting the Old Testament, or the Old Testament contradicting Jesus, the Christ? Then, either Jesus would be a false prophet, or God would be changeable. And if God is changeable, then He's like most people. People change. They also change their opinion every day, just as the Church endorses its own opinions, building a whole work of doctrine upon it.
But even in the Old Testament of the Bible, we read: "For I, the Lord, do not change ...!" (Mal.3:6).
Let us realize that if God is absolute, He cannot change. If God were to change Himself, He would be imperfect. But He is a perfect God, an absolute God. He has absolute laws. We can see that He is absolute when we look into the laws of nature. So, who is the false teacher here - the "god" in the Old Testament, or Jesus, the Christ, of our time? Or who?

An analytical mind would reach the logical conclusion that, for the most part, it is those who wrote the Old Testament. And that would be the priests, but not God.
However, in the Catholic Catechism we read something different. There it says under No. 136:
God is the author of the Sacred Scripture, because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth.
And, as already mentioned, under No. 140 we can read:
The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are the true Word of God.
Note well - "both!" We can only conclude that if, according to ecclesiastical opinion, the Old Testament should be fulfilled in the New, then this invalidates the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. For Jesus taught something entirely different from the Old Testament. Therefore, who is invalidating whom? The caste of priests stands in the middle, and takes from each whatever happens to fit its objectives. In this way, mankind, which to a great extent believes in the caste of priests, is ultimately seduced and led astray.

The institution of the Holy See has always referred to those passages of the Bible that were written in by the caste of priests, and has always been against the statements made by Jesus of Nazareth. We only have to think of the core teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, the Sermon on the Mount. The caste of priests claims it is utopian and cannot be lived. On the other hand, such things as the robes, the splendor, the pomp, find approval at the Holy See. Or think of the many instructions for killing in the Old Testament and the trail of blood left by the Vatican Church over the centuries. With such a background, it follows that the Holy See has consistently favored the old pagan religions of the priests.


Whoever contradicts the viewpoint
of the Church or of the priests "shall die."
The murderous instructions of the
Old Testament still hold true according
to the Catholic Catechism
and Protestant doctrine

There is something else analytical minds could think about:
Even though Moses gave the commandment "You shall not kill," many instructions to murder in the Old Testament have been attributed to Moses as the word of God. For example, in Deuteronomy, God is alleged to have said:
"... you shall put all its males to the sword" (Dt.20:13). Or: "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh - with the blood of the slain and the captives" (Dt.32:42). Although He gave the commandment "You shall not kill," God is supposed to have given the order: "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him" (Num.3:17). Credibility is impossibly strained! Such instructions may very well have been given by a demon, but never by God!
Or the following statement: "The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die" (Dt.17:12). Need we any other indication of authorship?
Now, an analytical mind would ask if all this is indeed to be fulfilled in the New Testament, given that the Catholic Catechism says this as a binding doctrinal statement.
The era of the New Testament is also the era of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of witches. In view of these acts of violence, we can say that the Old Testament is already being fulfilled in the New Testament. They were the "human sacrifices" that were brought before the god of the underworld.
From this, we can see that the demonic energy has begun to fulfill the Old Testament in the New via the Holy See. How will this continue?

Although many may tend to dismiss this as mere words, experience teaches otherwise. Politicians, for example, take such words very seriously. In the biography of the former president of Croatia, Franjo Tudjmann, who was involved in the war in Yugoslavia, this statesman is quoted as saying: "Genocide is not only allowed, but recommended." 10 And he literally based himself on the almighty Jehovah of the Old Testament, although this is about present day events!
Of course, many may think: "That doesn't concern me; I am a Protestant." But Martin Luther also did not say that God is found in the inner being of a person as did Jesus. And he also confirmed the absolute authority of church teaching. He even went so far as to announce:
If anyone wishes to preach or teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master - namely, Master Hans ?i.e., the hangman.? 11
So Luther didn't bring anything new, but merely emphasized the message that whoever contradicts the Church and its teachings should be executed.

And what did Jesus say? "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you" (Mt.5:44). This is in direct contradiction to what the Catholic and Lutheran churches teach. Isn't it time Christian folk decide where they stand on this?
A pope undertakes the construction
of majestic buildings to "strengthen the faith of the believing masses who look upon their glory." 12 And what did Jesus say?

But it would be interesting to know what the caste of priests thinks of its faithful. According to Reinhardt Volker in his book "Rom, Kunst und Geschichte, 1480-1650," Pope Nicholas V tried to explain this on his deathbed:
... particularly because the papal power is the highest, most sublime and supernatural, it requires the supporting power of the senses because the supernatural is comprehensible to most people only when their senses can grasp it. That is precisely why the papacy needs the might of structures ... What the great masses can never appreciate through a lack of education or intellectual capability, they have before them in structures ... buildings which in their sublimity seem as if erected by God, letting the sublimity and eternity of Christian teachings shine through eternally, thus producing devotio, piousness and the proper willingness to subject oneself to the head of the Church.13

But Jesus said: "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures, where moth and rust consume" (Mt.6:19). He also spoke about the fact that a human being is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that we need no external temples; we can find God in ourselves.

Jesus, the Christ, commanded us quite simply: "Follow Me ... Love your neighbor as yourself ... Love God." And He also taught: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Mt.7:12). This is the Golden Rule.
Jesus was a man of the people, who very simply taught love of neighbor and helped people come to recognize themselves. He encouraged them to understand where they were still at fault, and He gave them the glad tidings that with God's help they could get rid of what was not good in themselves. Thus, Jesus was a very simple man, who showed people the way to find God in their own inner being and to experience God in creation, in their fellowman, in the animals, in plants, in stones. And Jesus said: "But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret " (Mt.6:6). This means, link with God in you, for you are the temple of God.

So we can see that Jesus says exactly the opposite of what is taught by the Church and ultimately, by the Old Testament, as well. So who is teaching falsely? Jesus, the Christ? Or the Old Testament, that is, the "God" of the Old Testament, of which we have seen that, in reality, it is the word of the caste of priests in their writings? Again, it is the priests, who, since the times of the Old Testament, have acted against Jesus.
To lead the people astray every now and then, the caste of priests takes a few sentences of Jesus, citing from them. But only those things are picked out that fit its momentary purpose. And yet, its own teaching, the teaching of the Holy See, is supposed to be "infallible." This was established in 1870 with the dogma of infallibility of the Catholic, the papal, office of doctrine. But the statements of Jesus are like a stone quarry for the idolaters, who help themselves to them, so that the cloak of "Christian" or of "Jesus" is draped around them, thus furthering their deception of the people.


The churches invented dogmas to intimidate the people and to have a pretext for taking action against those who deviated from them

In the New Testament, the words of Jesus, the Christ, say nothing about dogmas. It would be interesting to know where dogmas come from.
The Church started them through its councils, saying: From now on this is valid as a dogma and then later, they added another one. And so, one dogma was added to the other. The last one was the physical assumption of Mary into heaven, announced in 1950, which we can read in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" in Nos. 966 & 974. Since it is a dogma, a Catholic must believe it. If he does not believe it, then he is considered a heretic and eternal hell will be waiting for him. This is also a part of the "religious truths" that are binding. The people are intimidated and made fearful. Jesus did not say anything at all about this. He neither taught such things nor did He talk about dogmas at all.
Dogmas emerged over the centuries as the Church saw there were people who still strove for Original Christianity. One doctrine or other was then established which, in part, are very difficult to believe because they contradict common sense. Despite this, the dogmas were declared as binding doctrines and gave the Holy See an excellent opportunity to take action against those people who did not toe the church line of that time. Thus, the dogmas gave an excuse to persecute these people, to excommunicate those who deviated from the faith because they did not believe in the dogmas. From the very beginning, dogmas were used as a weapon against those who wanted to, and did, live something different, a weapon against those who would leave the Church.
This whole rigmarole was slowly put together over the centuries. Most people are not aware of this, continuing to think that the doctrine of the Catholic Church comes from early Christianity and was created on its foundation. But the facts are not consistent with this assumption, for the whole thing was built like a mosaic, piece by piece. Although many dogmas were introduced early on, they became an official part of church doctrine much later, eventually finding their way into Neuner-Roos, "The Teaching of the Catholic Church as Contained in Her Documents." (Abbreviated below as N-R.) For example, Emperor Constantine, while a pagan sun-worshipper, declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire in 32114 and the Church Council of Laodicea circa 364 endorsed this by ordering that religious observances take place on Sunday.15 Pope Gregory I (540-604) referred to purgatory as a purifying fire, but it wasn't until 1254 that it was given a dogmatic definition. (N-R 814, Letter from Innocent IV to Bishop of Tusculum) Mary as the Mother of God and immaculate conception was introduced in 649 at the Lateran Council (N-R 325), as was the Dogma of Trinity (N-R 267). Auricular confession was introduced by the IV Lateran Council in 1215.16 The canonization of the dead was formally incorporated into church law in 1234 by Pope Gregory IX.17 The Catholic Church as necessary for salvation (N-R 340-341) and the necessity of submitting to the Roman Pontiff (N-R 342) was introduced in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Baptism as necessary for salvation was made official in 1547 at the Council of Trent. (N-R 440) The sacrament of penance (N-R 572-586) and canons on extreme unction (N-R 617-620) were made in 1551 at the Council of Trent (14th session). In 1563, invocation, veneration and relics of saints and sacred images (N-R 400-404) became official at the Council of Trent (25th session). Some dogmas were instituted quite late, during the 20th century. For example, the inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Scriptures became formal in 1920 in Benedict XV's encyclical (N-R 121-122) and Mary's assumption into heaven was adopted under Pope Pius XII in 1950. (N-R 334) The list is quite lengthy. Every century something was added to make the rigmarole ever bigger and more "beautiful."

And so, dogmas may be church doctrines, but never the laws of God. They first emerged when early Christianity had already turned into its opposite, that is, once the priests took over power.
What the Church has to say about this today, we can read in the book: "The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church," by J. Neuner and J. Dupuis:
The office of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed down, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. (No. 248) 18

This statement alone reflects the presumptuousness of the Church in its claim to unconditional power.
But according to the teaching of Jesus, the Christ, there is no church! For according to Jesus, there is the small chamber, into which you should go and become aware that you are the temple of God and that God is in you. And the more we fulfill our prayers, by taking the commandments of God in hand as well as the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, and acting on them, the more we become a living temple. At this point, why would we need the whole hodge-podge of the Old Testament? Why would we need the whole set-up of the caste of priests, the idolaters of the present time? Jesus is the life and the caste of priests is not, whether we're talking about the Old or the New Testament.


The doctrines of the Church are there to uphold its power, to impose the dictatorship of the Church

The doctrines of the Church can be compared to the laws of a worldly state. These are made to uphold and maintain their own power. And so, in the Church's case, their doctrines are created exclusively to control the so-called faithful and to uphold the dictatorship of the Holy See. This can be seen in the fact that those who question these doctrines are punished with the highest punishment the Church can mete out. In Neuner-Roos we read what it says about doctrines:
If any one shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to dogmas propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands - anathema sit. (No. 61)
We need only think of the scientist, Galileo Galilei, who discovered that the earth revolves around the sun. He was subjected to an Inquisition trial because of this and had to retract his statement.19 So if we were to claim that what the Church taught back then is false today, we would be excommunicated. Clearly, these doctrines of faith have no other purpose than to uphold the power of the Church. But with Jesus, the Christ, there are no doctrines. Jesus, the Christ, was concerned with leading the people to God. Doctrines, on the other hand, serve merely to impose the dictatorship of the Church.
Perhaps the dictators of church ignorance do not take people at all seriously. Others apparently think so. Perhaps many a reader may remember the Grand Inquisitor by Dostoyevski, who also made clear to the Jesus who appeared in this story that the Grand Inquisitor and the Church had taken the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, twisted them and led the people astray with them.
And let us not forget the motive force behind Pope Nicholas V undertaking the construction of majestic buildings:
What the great masses can never appreciate through a lack of education or intellectual capability, they have before them in structures ... producing devotio, piousness and the proper willingness to subject oneself to the head of the Church.20
And what did we have before our eyes during the first months of 2005: majestic buildings, grand appearances, impressive music, luxury, splendor and precious stones.


The way out of this dilemma: "Come out of her, my people..."

Dear reader, can such an attitude toward the people truly be of divine origin? Or is it perhaps, rather, the expression of a satanic energy?
For those among you who are beginning to wonder how you should respond to this information, there is a way out. The way out of the dilemma, which perhaps you can discover for yourself, can also be found in the Bible where it says: "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues" (Rev.18:4).

This is only a very small part of the many, many contradictions that can be discovered when a person starts to think analytically and to raise questions, not simply accepting without criticism what is put before him.
At this point, we would also like to expressly make clear that every person has the freedom to believe what he wants. And every institution can teach what it wants. However, Original Christians do not remain silent when an institution calls itself Christian, the teachings of which not only have nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, but even contradict them.