Pagan cults of sacrifice and the priests' claims to power.
Who wrote the books of Moses?


We have now reached the second part of the radio series: "For the Analytical Mind - Who Is Sitting on the Chair of Peter?"
The media campaign presented worldwide by the Chair of Peter at the beginning of 2005 gave impetus to this roundtable discussion of the Original Christians. We want to examine more closely the following questions: What is actually behind this Chair of Peter, also known as the Holy See? How did the Holy See portray itself in the past? What are its intentions? And, what should we still expect from it?


The roots of the present-day caste of priests

Following, we will again take a look at the roots of the present-day caste of priests in Rome with its rites and ceremonies, with its pomp, its wealth and splendid robes. These roots reach all the way back to Old Testament times. We will start with the following question: Was there such a caste of priests already at the time of Abraham?
Abraham came from the city of Ur in Chaldea, the country of present-day Iraq. The people believed in many gods, and at that time, many priests and many different kinds of cults flourished there. The family in which Abraham grew up was no different and practiced paganism, like all the families of that time. This paganism had, of course, its corresponding priests.
Abraham lived during the time of the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, which was during the first half of the 2nd millennia before Christ. And it was in Babylon that the Sumerians developed a whole world of gods. There was a sun god; there were various city gods; there was a goddess of love named Ischtar and there was also a hierarchical caste of priests who regarded themselves as intermediaries between their particular god and the people.
The rulership of the state was in the hands of the caste of priests. The king was, at the same time, the priest-king and his task was to appease or pacify the god or gods and establish communication between the people and these deities.
According to the concepts of that time, the "gods" evidently required sacrifices. They required animal sacrifices but also human sacrifices. It was not seldom that to satisfy a particular deity of that time, a firstborn child was sacrificed to it.

Isaac was Abraham's firstborn son and Abraham loved him above all things. To have a son whom he designated as his heir and placed before all his other children was for Abraham a deep heartfelt feeling. According to the Bible, it was to Abraham that God said: "Take your son, your only son Isaac ... and offer him there as a burnt offering ..." (Gen.22:2). With this, God actually meant that Abraham should sacrifice the strong binding he had with his son and not to sacrifice his son, per se.
Abraham struggled with God's demand that he sacrifice his firstborn, his favorite son. The word "sacrifice" was so deeply rooted in his consciousness that he actually thought God meant a human sacrifice. To Abraham the thought of human or animal sacrifices was totally normal, and that he should sacrifice a son to God also fit, because from his point of reference, from the polytheism he grew up in, he thought he was relating to a pagan god. It was clear to him that he now had to bring God a human sacrifice, his beloved son.
But this was a misunderstanding on the part of Abraham. What God did not want was that Abraham idolize his son, as we would say today, loving his son more than God. Instead, he wanted Abraham to put Him, God, in first place. But Abraham thought this "sacrifice" meant to kill his son.
That the angel intervened and held back Abraham, saying: "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him ..." (Gen.22:12) was a symbol. God wanted nothing more than that Abraham take his son by the hand and that both go to Him, to the one God of love. He wanted Abraham to put not Isaac in first place, but always God. And Abraham, of course, misunderstood this; he wanted to be obedient and would have killed Isaac, making such a "sacrifice." In the end, we know that Abraham sacrificed a ram, instead. However, we know through later prophets that God also spoke out against such sacrifices.
So here, too, the old pagan way of thinking still managed to come through - "if not my son, then at least an animal!" We can see that a struggle took place in the human being, in this case, in Abraham. The growing awareness of the Spirit of God, the only one God, could only gradually come to prevail against the old caste of priests and its precepts. Centuries were needed, during which true prophets appeared again and again and struggled with the pagan priest-cults over the true sacrifice, which did not consist of people or animals, but of growing into a devotion to God.

In polytheism, fear of the gods was very basic, a fear that the gods would simply attack a person and take away his animals and land, kill him, torture him and the like. In the Old Testament, we can read over and over again that God had to be appeased. So by sacrificing a ram, Abraham was also trying to appease God, along the lines of: "Please don't be mad at me if I don't sacrifice my son now. Don't do anything to me and above all don't do anything to Isaac; this is why I sacrifice this ram to you, to appease you." Even though Abraham already knew about God, the All-One, he was relating to a cruel god from polytheism, since this thought still continued to have influence over him.

During captivity in Egypt, the people of Israel adopted many local customs, for example, the pompous garments of the priests

The pagan concept cultivated by the caste of priests that God is a cruel God can also be found in other books of Moses, for example, in the reports given about the time after Moses led the people out of Egypt. Moses, the great prophet, received the commandments from God on Mount Sinai. When he descended from Mount Sinai, the Israelites had built a calf of gold and were sacrificing to it. Here again, the influence of the pagan priesthood was at work, for the Israelites had just come from Egypt, and this pagan priesthood with its sacrifices had also existed in Egypt. That is where the Israelites learned about this custom. They took many customs, religious and otherwise, from the people of Egypt, which they made their own, for they had not yet developed a trust in the merciful and kind God.
This influence of the pagan religions of the priests on the people of Israel at the time of Moses is quite understandable. The Jewish people had been held captive in Egypt over several centuries, and saw how the caste of priests was clothed, what they did and what power they held. It is quite evident that much of this was adopted by the Israelites, beginning with the pompous clothing. From history, we know about the splendid, costly clothing of the Pharaohs and their caste of priests. It is quite natural to think that the Israelites would have copied this, as well.


The Books of Moses were for the most part written by priests almost 1000 years after Moses, slipping them into the Old Testament to serve their own interests and concepts

In tracing back the authorship of the books of Moses, the most widely accepted theory among non-traditionalists is the documentary hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, several documents were created over the centuries by different "authors," the predominant opinion being that many of the stories were orally passed on over the generations before being written down. One of the most influential of these is called the "P document," which assumes a priestly author because it adds material of major interest to the priesthood and from a priestly perspective.21
As stated earlier, the date of the appearance of the "P document" is hotly debated among scholars, but there is general agreement this work appeared somewhere during 770-580 BC. It was most probably refined and compiled by the Israeli priests living in exile in Babylon at that time. For all intents and purposes, they practically projected their cults, their priestly beliefs, back into the time of Moses with these writings. 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 their culture.

Thus, the books of Moses were not written during Moses' lifetime, but almost a thousand years later. Before that, there were individual records, for example, the first records about Moses go back to the time of King David and King Solomon. But there was nothing in them about these priest cults. As mentioned above, that was added later, most likely during the 6th century before Christ.
To be precise, the priests used Moses to slip their concepts, their desires, their positions into the so-called Pentateuch. In the final analysis, the Old Testament of the Bible is a product of the priests and not of Moses.


The priests deliberately placed themselves between God and the people.
This opened the way for them to rule over the people by means of threats

An analytical mind would try to figure out why the priests should play such an important role. It is certainly important to the priests, because through this they can place themselves between God and the people saying: "You need priests to attain your salvation. You need priests to pacify God. You need priests to carry out everything that is prescribed, so that you are good adherents of the cult."
Today, it is very similar; the priests who stand between God and the people are important. But what did Jesus say? Jesus never spoke about priests. Instead, He taught: "The kingdom of God is in you" (Lk.17:21). According to this teaching, every priest, every caste of priests and every priestly institution is superfluous.
There are also well-known theologians, for example, Rupert Lay and Herbert Haag, who say that Jesus did not appoint any priests.22 He neither founded a church, nor appointed priests. If the prophets did not want priests, and Jesus, the Christ, wants them even less, then it must be the people who want priests. But why? Can it be that it is much easier to go to a priest and confess, and then have him take away all my sins, than if I have to go to someone to clear things up with him, myself? The priest takes away the need for any effort on my part, and I get into heaven scot-free, so to speak. This is a superstition still taught by the Church today.
Apparently, people need high-ranking personalities. The all-too-human ego wants to have an image before it that represents God. But was this idea present from the very beginning, or was it instilled in the people? And by whom? Most probably by those who profit from it, namely, the priests.
If Jesus of Nazareth taught that God is within, in you, this had to have been a message that moved the hearts of the people. So how did the people get the idea that they needed confessionals, that they had to buy indulgences and make sacrifices? A caste of priestly idolaters would have an easy time teaching these to the people by practicing a coercion linked with spiritual threats of punishment such as: "If you do not follow us, then you will land in Hell. If you do not do what we have ordered, then you will not go to God." Here, we find repeated what was already a part of the so-called "P document," referred to earlier, namely, a certain legal order that contains very specific regulations about how the people should behave, and makes dire threats to those who do not fulfill these rules.
If the scripture of the priests was written almost a 1000 years after Moses, then we can well imagine, particularly considering those who wrote it, that what is in the books of Moses today has little to do with reality. Instead, they were cleverly colored, a thousand years later, to fit their wants.


"And God is supposed to have said that to Moses?"
Descriptions from the Old Testament.
Whoever does not keep the regulations "shall die"

These books should be read with the utmost caution, never losing sight of the fact that a caste of priests - the enemy of prophets, as depicted in Walter Nigg's book, "Prophetische Denker. Löschet den Geist nicht aus," 23 - is writing about Moses here. If we question whether God really would have said something through Moses, we quickly note how improbable it is; for example, that God would have said the following through Moses:

Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests - Aaron and Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aaron's garments to consecrate him for my priesthood. 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 ... 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. You shall take two onyx stones, and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel, six of their names on the one stone, and the names of the remaining six on the other stone, in the order of their birth. As a jeweler engraves signets, so shall you engrave the two stones with the names of the sons of Israel. You shall enclose them in settings of gold filigree. And you shall set the two stones on the shoulder pieces of the ephod, as stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel. And Aaron shall bear their names before the Lord on his two shoulders for remembrance. You shall make settings of gold filigree, and two chains of pure gold, twisted like cords; and you shall attach the corded chains to the settings. (Ex.28:1-4;6-14)

Continuing several verses later:
You shall make the robe of the ephod all of blue. It shall have an opening for the head in the middle of it, with a woven binding around the opening, like the opening in a garment, so that it may not tear. On its hem you shall make pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet yarns, around its hem, with bells of gold between them, a golden bell and a pomegranate, around the hem of the robe. And it shall be on Aaron when he ministers, and its sound shall be heard when he goes into the Holy Place before the Lord, and when he comes out, so that he does not die. (Ex.28:31-35)

For an analytical mind, strong doubts would come into play, as to whether God really did say this. It is impossible to imagine that God would need such pomp, such ostentatious veneration. Above all, it is impossible to believe that a person should die merely because he did not keep such regulations.
And yet, "... so that he does not die" is written here, that is, the high priest shall be killed if he does not wear the prescribed garment. And God, the Eternal One, spoke through Moses in the Ten Commandments: "You shall not kill." Such a contradiction is found in many different places of the Old Testament, where God allegedly calls again and again for killing those people who do not follow certain regulations. This draws through the whole priests' scriptures, referred to earlier as the "P document," but such an order certainly could not have been given by God.


Detailed rules concerning the priests' garments and the rituals from the Old
Testament as an example for the Church today. What did Jesus, the Christ, say about the Pharisees and scribes?

The garments of the caste of priests today are very similar to that of the priests of the Old Testament. This would indicate that they also originated in paganism. In Exodus, we read:
You shall make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet, 'Holy to the Lord.' And you shall fasten it on the turban by a cord of blue. It shall be on the front of the turban. It shall be on Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear any guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts. It shall regularly be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord. (Ex. 28:36-38)
What is also quite interesting is the practice of anointing oil, which reminds one of today's anointing with oil. For example, we can read the following: "And he poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron's head and anointed him to consecrate him" (Lev.8:12). Or: "And he sprinkled some of it on the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all its utensils and the basin and its stand, to consecrate them" (Lev.8:11).
We are immediately reminded of today's rituals, for example, when a church is consecrated, when a bishop, a priest or a deacon is consecrated. Specific instructions are given and basically, it's just as lavish and incomprehensible as what we read above.

But what did Jesus, the Christ, say to all these cults? He essentially said to the people: You are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Adorn your soul with the adornment of virtue, with good, God-pleasing thoughts. Live according to the Ten Commandments and according to the words of life that I brought to the people, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount. He never spoke of rites and rituals, much less of the appointment of priests.
That something was wrong with the priesthood had already occurred to the prophet Jeremiah, as we can read in the Old Testament: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?' But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie" (Jer.8:8). Thus, the great prophet Jeremiah was addressing the fact that things had gone wrong; that the scripture, the word, had already been falsified by the priests.
The clothing regulations could also remind us of what Jesus said about people who were dressed in the same way:
They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others.
And then comes the well-known sentence:
But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. (Mt.23:5-8)

In its meaning, this refers, of course, to brothers and sisters, for Jesus taught equality and not a hierarchy of priests and officials.
And Jesus also taught His followers with the words: "Follow Me!" (Mt. 4:19). This means to do what He taught and ultimately, what is written in the commandments of God as well, for the instructions of Jesus are in harmony with the commandments of God.
Animal sacrifices in the Old Testament
"with a pleasing odor to the Lord."
Jesus always stood up for the animals

What did Jesus actually say about animal sacrifices?
There is a citation from Jesus that can be found in an apocryphal script (The Gospel of the Ebionites), where only a few scraps of paper still exist, but interestingly enough, a piece was preserved and can be read in museums, which says: "I came to destroy the sacrifices..." 24 And in the New Testament we can read about the time Jesus was in the desert and lived in peace with the so-called wild animals, or how He freed the animals in the temple that were meant to be sold by the merchants for sacrifices. There are many examples of Jesus supporting the animals. Some are in the Bible, but most of them are in scriptures found outside of the Bible.

In comparison, the priest's scriptures of the Old Testament say in Leviticus, for example, that the Lord called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying that burnt offerings are animal sacrifices, where the whole animal is burned in front of the altar, as opposed to other offerings where only a part of the animal is burned and the other parts are given to the priests or are eaten by the community that made the offering.
Very detailed instructions are given in Leviticus:
If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord. He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. Then he shall kill the bull before the Lord, and Aaron's sons the priests shall bring the blood and throw the blood against the sides of the altar that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting. Then he shall flay the burnt offering and cut it into pieces, and the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. And Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat, on the wood that is on the fire on the altar; but its entrails and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar, as a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing odor to the Lord. (Lev.1:3-9)

These words, "a pleasing odor to the Lord," sound just like paganism, a pacifying of the gods by bringing them a sacrifice. The book of Leviticus is filled with instructions about sacrifices, that is, about how animals should be killed. It is even written that Moses supposedly consecrated the priests in the following way:
And Moses brought Aaron's sons and clothed them with coats and tied sashes around their waists and bound caps on them, as the LORD commanded Moses. Then he brought the bull of the sin offering, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the bull of the sin offering. And he killed it, and Moses took the blood, and with his finger put it on the horns of the altar around it and purified the altar and poured out the blood at the base of the altar and consecrated it to make atonement for it. And he took all the fat that was on the entrails and the long lobe of the liver and the two kidneys with their fat, and Moses burned them on the altar. But the bull and its skin and its flesh and its dung he burned up with fire outside the camp, as the LORD commanded Moses. Then he presented the ram of the burnt offering; ... And Moses killed it, and threw the blood upon the altar round about. (Lev. 8:13-19)
This goes on and on with the most incredibly horrible instructions. And they always end with a sentence like: "as a burnt offering ... a pleasing odor ... an offering by fire to the Lord ..." Or also: "as the Lord commanded Moses" (Lev. 8:21).

In another passage, it describes how a turtle dove or a pigeon should be sacrificed: "And the priest shall bring it to the altar and wring off its head, and burn it on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar" (Lev.1:15).
These cruel rituals are recorded in the book of Leviticus. It is a part of the so-called books of Moses, which at least for the most part, were written by the priests considerably after the fact. It also completely contradicts the first book of Moses where God said:
Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food. And it was so. And God saw ev- erything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. (Gen.1:29-31)
The instructions found in Leviticus also contradict many other passages that have been cited previously. They certainly contradict the fact that shortly before, Moses had received the Ten Commandments, where God expressly commanded: "You shall not kill."
To round things off, one last statement about what the priests should do at the altar in honor of God, for example, the instructions to the priests on how to sacrifice doves end in the following way:
He shall remove its crop with its contents and cast it beside the altar on the east side, in the place for ashes. He shall tear it open by its wings, but shall not sever it completely. And the priest shall burn it on the altar, on the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing odor to the Lord. (Lev.1:16-17)
These descriptions depict a very cruel God: "With a pleasing odor to the Lord." But Jesus, the Christ, taught us the God of love, the God of peace, the God of unity, the God who is with nature, for nature, for the Mother Earth.


Only a few people know that the Holy See determines that the Old and New Testaments are "both the true word of God." It is a cruel, pagan God
who predominates in the reports of the Old Testament

It is quite conceivable to understand now why God, our eternal Father, sent His Son, Jesus, the Christ, to put an end to all these cults, to all this paganism. And Jesus, the Christ, did teach what puts an end to it. Then and today, He was and is against the caste of priests, which uses God as means to its own ends.
Many may now say: "But all this is long since past. It has no relevance today." But the present-day caste of priests says, on the other hand that the New Testament fulfills the Old. Doesn't this mean that at some point in time, these horrible scenes from the Old Testament will again flow into New Testament times? In the final analysis, this is what the Catholic Church decreed in its Catechism, where we read under No. 140: "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."

So according to this, what we read in the books of Moses is supposed to be the true word of God. Such statements as, for example, in Leviticus 20 where we read: "For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death..." (20:9). Or: "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (20:10). Or in a reference to homosexuality: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death..." (20:13). Or also: "If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal" (20:15). And at that, even though the animal was forced into it and couldn't help itself. It then goes on to say: "If a woman approaches any animal and has sexual relations with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal..." (20:16).
What is also interesting is a statement in Deuteronomy:
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil ... (Dt.21:18-21)

These are only a few examples from an abundance of terrible regulations that are contained in this book. And among such statements, we read that anyone who presumes to disobey the priest shall die. (Dt.17:12)
We can also read that God allegedly called for the destruction of all enemies and to destroy everything that was against their own beliefs.

Many try to play down the bloody passages in these books by saying they are only myths or stories from the distant past. However, according to church doctrine, to assume this could be a fundamental error. Even as late as 1965, at the very famous Second Vatican Council, where the Church was supposed to have made a turn toward modern times, the following was decided:
Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see Jn.20:31; 2 Tim.3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.25
It is quite difficult to believe that the Church would teach such a thing, for this doctrine is basically saying that every atrocity contained in the Old Testament is a product of the Holy Spirit. - But Jesus called for something entirely different.


Church doctrine, a crass contradiction to the true teachings of Jesus.
Should the Old Testament again make a breakthrough by using the cloak of "Jesus" and "Christ"?

Why do we still have a caste of priests today that continues to act according to the Old Testament?
Did God, our eternal Father, send Jesus, His Son, who became our Redeemer, for nothing? Today, much of what the caste of priests does is against Jesus, against His teaching, and yet, they speak of "Jesus" and of "Christ" just as the priests' scriptures referred to Moses. They quoted Moses then, and are still quoting him today. And yet, it was the priests who invented all this - one could almost call it - nonsense. God wants something else. And He announced this via the prophets of the Old Testament and especially via Jesus, His Son. Jesus taught something entirely different from what the priests of our time are doing. There is a huge difference between the so-called "God" of the Old Testament and the present-day caste of priests, and Jesus, who brought a loving Father to the people.

We can read what Jesus taught us in the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mt.5:3-9)
And Jesus said about praying:
And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Mt.6:5-6)

Another passage fits with this: "All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted" (Mt.23:12).
And what did Jesus say about the caste of priests?
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)
And then a bit further on:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Woe to you, blind guides... (Mt.23:15-16)
Or in verse 13, Jesus said:
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
It seems this last expresses the crass difference between what Jesus of Nazareth taught and what is contained in the priests' scriptures of the so-called Old Testament. An analytical mind could draw the conclusion that this difference is made worse by the Church because it claims to base itself on Jesus of Nazareth and presumes to teach that the Old Testament, with these scriptures from the priests, which Jesus of Nazareth expressly turned against, is a revelation of God that is still valid today and is supposed to shed light on the New Testament which contains the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Furthermore, the New Testament is supposed to shed light on the Old Testament. But how can you shed light on the Old Testament through the New Testament - through the wonderful teachings of love, of peace and of unity? Only by identifying yourself as being the "New Testament," because what we have read from the scriptures of the priests has had light shed upon it, that is, it has been fulfilled - through the present-day caste of priests, but surely not through the New Testament. So, if we look at this statement more closely, it means nothing more than that the Old Testament should make its breakthrough again. And for this purpose, Jesus, the Christ, is used - the name "Jesus," which stands for love, for peace, for unity, for nature, for the Mother Earth, for every animal!

So, who actually was Jesus? Where did He come from?
Jesus was born of Mary and was the son of Mary and Joseph. He grew up under very modest circumstances. We know that Jesus came from the tribe of David and belonged to the tribe of Judah. This is actually an interesting fact, because from it, we can deduce that Jesus was not a priest and never could have become one either, for the priests all came from the tribe of Levi and had to be descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses. But neither requirement was true of Jesus, and thus, He never could have been a priest. So, in a very real sense, Jesus truly was a man of the people.
And as a man of the people, He also taught a magnificent and wonderful law of life, which is in God and is given to all people who love Jesus, the Christ, by following Him.

As Original Christians, we see it as our task to again give all people an understanding of this, so that the wrong impression doesn't develop that simply because they drape themselves with the cloak called "Christian," the institutions should be considered as representative of His teaching.