A work of reference for gathering information


The first programs in our series "For the Analytical Mind - Who Is Sitting on the Chair of Peter?" brought quite a lively echo from our listeners. Many letters reached us that raised questions on such issues as the ritualistic ceremonies, the dogmas, the crimes committed by the Catholic caste of priests, the assets worth billions, the pagan roots and much more.
We want to answer some of these questions today.


Was Jesus, were the early Christians, vegetarian?

A listener from Germany wrote the following.
Question:
I am a vegetarian but if I talk about it with my friends, they always argue that there's nothing in the Bible about the fact that Jesus never ate any meat. How come? In your program it was stated that God never wanted the animal sacrifices described in the Old Testament, and that Jesus never wanted people to kill animals. Could you tell me more about this? Are there any books on this subject?
Answer: A church father, St. Jerome, compiled the first Bible for the Catholic Church back in 370 AD. It is generally assumed that Jerome had access to all the scriptures on the teachings of Jesus that were still available at his time. Commissioned directly by Pope Damasus I, whose secretary he was, he compiled the Vulgate, the first Latin Bible. Jerome knew very well from all his readings that Jesus did not eat meat and also taught that animals are to be loved and not killed. In a treatise on Jovinian, Jerome made a noteworthy statement to this topic. He wrote:
The eating of flesh was unknown until the deluge. But after the deluge, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our teeth ... But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no longer allowed to eat flesh. (Adversus Jovinianum) 26

This makes it quite clear that Jesus called on the people to eat no meat, which is confirmed in the ancient gospels that were not included in the Bible. Despite this, in compiling the Vulgate - today's Bible - Jerome withheld these important aspects of the teaching of Jesus, including instead, documents that had already been falsified.
Every day, millions of animals pay with their lives for this falsification of the teaching of Jesus. Since then, and particularly with the onset of industrial farming, countless billions of animals have been subjected to infirmity and death in dark barns; it is primarily Christian nations that have mutated into meat-eaters. The consequences of this suppression of information have been unimaginable for nature, animals and for people, as well.

Many apocryphal scriptures confirm that Jesus and the apostles were vegetarian. For example, there is a booklet available entitled: "The Hidden Love of Jesus for the Animals" 27 as well as a booklet entitled, "The Bible Was Falsified. Jerome, the Church Falsifier of the Bible." 28


Why did Jerome leave statements in the biblical texts that expose the Chair of Peter as anti-Christian?

Question:
During the first programs a passage from the book of Revelations at the end of the Bible was quoted, where people apparently are rather encouraged to leave the Church. If this is right, why was this passage left in the Bible, when the churches have manipulated so many other things in it?
And how can a person actually leave the Church? How is this done?
Answer: The passage being referred to is found in Revelations 18:4, and reads: Come out of her my people, lest you take part in her sins and share in her plagues. We could even say it is a call to leave the "whore of Babylon." Over the centuries, the "whore of Babylon" has come to be interpreted as being the Church, which replaced earlier Christianity. So the question is quite legitimate: How can it be that such a notable sentence was left in the Bible?

We again have to refer back to Jerome. We have just heard that he withheld some things, but on the other hand, he also left some things in, which were frowned upon by the Holy See. Jerome was of ambivalent character. He received the task from Pope Damasus during the 4th century to compile a unified text from the many existing scriptures, and already then he recognized that it would be a difficult task. In a letter to Pope Damasus he wrote:
Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume into his hands, and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled tastes, break out immediately into violent language, and call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections therein? 29
It was quite clear to Jerome that he would have to make very individual and, perhaps even unauthorized, decisions on his own. It is important to realize that Jerome wanted to make a career for himself in the Church; he even wanted to become pope. This is why he accepted this task, even though he must have known in his heart that some things simply weren't right in his compilation of the Bible. During his earlier years, Jerome was an adherent of Origen, who wanted to bring Original Christianity back to life, and who had also seen through the falsifications of the scriptures that later became the Bible. Origen lived during the 3rd century, that is, before Jerome, who lived in the 4th century. As an adherent of Origen, Jerome was quite aware that he ran the risk of being labeled a heretic and of becoming an outcast. So he chose to follow the middle road: He left some things out, as, for example, what Jesus, the Christ, stated about the animals.

On the other hand, he left other things in that are quite noteworthy and that in later times brought people to realize that something wasn't quite right in the Bible, that the teachings and the life led in the Church did not quite agree with what was in the Bible, for example, in fact that priests exist at all. Jesus himself said: "...But you are not to be called rabbi " (Mt.23:8). Or the fact that the Church justifies war, while Jesus said: "... for all who take the sword, will perish by the sword" (Mt. 26:52). These passages and the one mentioned from Revelations were also left in the Bible.
A logical question to ask here is:
So, was Jerome made into a saint by the Church because he falsified the Bible and subjugated himself to the Church?

Answer: We can certainly assume this. He fulfilled a very important task for the Church, because during his time there were many, many scriptures available. There were the so-called apocryphal scripts where much can be found, for example, on Jesus of Nazareth's love for the animals. During His time, no one was saying: "This text is more important than the other." Anyone could seek out a text that he considered a true one and which he could then test with his heart by practicing it. What Jerome did was to severely restrict this possibility, creating a canon that was the only valid one as far as the Church was concerned.


Even a great sinner is canonized if he serves the interests of the Holy See

So anyone who was or is made a saint must be subject to the Catholic Church. Whether sinner or not does not really play a role, does it?

Answer: No. Jerome fulfilled the task given to him by the Church, and this eventually led to his canonization.
This can be said of all those people who were later canonized by the Church. Whether sinner or not, plays no role. What is important is that you serve the interests of the Church.
Even Emperor Constantine is revered as a saint. We will hear more about him at a later point. Constantine was a very brutal, violent person who had his own family killed, his wife and his son. He even had his closest allies killed in the most cruel way. And yet, the Church reveres him; perhaps because he created the many privileges for the Church? There are many saints who would fit in this category.


Leaving the Church - How?

One aspect from our first question was: How can a person actually leave the Church. How is it done?

Answer: This is probably done differently depending on the respective country. But perhaps we could give an example on how it is done in Germany: You simply take your ID card to the relevant registry office or district court and pay a fee, and then it takes effect immediately. What is notable about this is the fact that you leave the Church by applying to the state for this withdrawal, not to the Church. This shows the hand-in-glove relationship between church and state in Germany.
But this small fee is nominal in comparison to what you save by taking this step. Someone once calculated that an average church taxpayer pays enough church tax over the course of his lifetime to enable him to easily afford a good retirement package, or even a small home, if he were to earn interest on it. This fact is very unique to Germany - that a person automatically pays a separate tax to the Church, along with the taxes that he pays to the state, both collected by the government. However, this applies only to the Catholic and Protestant-Lutheran Churches, which are considered the two mainstream, that is, official, churches in Germany. And regardless of attendance or membership, upon becoming a taxpayer, a person automatically pays this church tax. If this is unacceptable to an individual, that person must go to the respective German government office and request that this money be applied somewhere else.
So if someone wants to become free of these organizations, this is the procedure in Germany. In other countries, there are other ways. If our readers have any questions on this, we will be happy to answer them accordingly and individually.

It is important to realize that if we no longer pay church taxes (in Germany) or church tithes, or if we no longer go to church, we are not dissociating ourselves from the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. Instead, we are dissociating ourselves from an idolatry, a paganism, that the churches embody, even though they have hung the cape "Christ" about their shoulders.

The privileges of the priests -
Cruelly instituted by the powerful

There's another question that relates to this:
You mentioned that it is quite possible that elements from the paganism of Babylonia slipped into the Old Testament. Are there grounds for this in the Bible, or what do you base this on?

Answer: The Israelites were imprisoned in Babylon over several generations. During this time, Cyrus, the King of Persia, conquered Babylon. The history of the return of the Israelites, as allowed by King Cyrus, is found in the Bible. We can read in the book of Ezra how this return was allowed to take place:
In the first year of his reign, King Cyrus issued a decree: Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the house be rebuilt, the place where sacrifices are offered and burnt offerings are brought. (Ezra 6:3)
So their return was linked with the task of rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. In the same breath, animal sacrifices are mentioned, sacrifices that are described in the Old Testament. However, in another part of the Old Testament it says that the great prophets of the Old Covenant clearly spoke out against these animal sacrifices.
And how did the Israelites react to this order? We can read this in chapter 3:
But many of the priests and Levites and heads of families, old people who had seen the first house on its foundations, wept with a loud voice when they saw this house, though many shouted aloud for joy. (Ezra 3:12)
Here, we can see that opposites are being expressed here: the one shouts for joy, the other weeps. Are they weeping for joy, or perhaps because they feel that something is being brought in or intensified in the rites of the Israelites that have nothing to do with the will of God? And what happened to those who resisted? This question is also quite interesting. From the beginning, with the decree of King Cyrus, we read:
Furthermore I decree that if anyone alters this edict, a beam shall be pulled out of the house of the perpetrator, who then shall be impaled on it. The house shall be made a dunghill. (Ezra 6:11)
And here, quite naturally, a question comes up: If this really were the will of God, that the Israelites go back and rebuild the temple as Cyrus instructed, then why would anyone resist it? And why would anyone have to be threatened with such a horrible punishment? Could it be that through Cyrus' order, those who still knew what the will of God was - that one should not offer up any animal sacrifices - would be cruelly wiped out before their return?
As we continue to read, we find the following:
This Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses that the Lord the God of Israel had given; and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the Lord his God was upon him. (Ezra 7:6)
But was this really so? Or did the king grant him everything because Ezra had done what he wanted?
As we continue reading, there is talk about money that Ezra should collect:
With this money, then, you shall with all diligence buy bulls, rams and lambs, and their grain offerings and their drink offerings, and you shall offer them on the altar of the house of your God in Jerusalem. (Ezra 7:17)

And shortly thereafter we read:
We also notify you that it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, custom, or toll on any of the priests, the Levites, the singers, the doorkeepers, the temple servants, or other servants of this house of God. (Ezra 7:24)
So here, the priests are being granted exemption from paying taxes. Surely it is easy to imagine that they themselves slipped this privilege into the Old Testament.
The reformulation of the 5th commandment into "You shall not murder" leaves room to justify killing

And if all this is supposed to have been commanded by God, then what does it have to do with the Ten Commandments, for example, with: You shall not kill ? Apparently, from the Biblical passages above, it would seem that King Cyrus, the priest Ezra and God were all in agreement, and yet, in God's commandments, He said: "You shall not kill." So is God a God who contradicts himself, or is God the Absolute? Either the commandments of God are false, or these many instructions in the Bible.
Historically, the Church has always taken the right to "correctly" interpret the commandments, and in this particular case, the church interpretation is: The commandment "you shall not kill" is valid only for private persons, but not for the leadership, who may, for example, mete out capital punishment, or give the order to go to war. Apparently, the commandments have been interpreted just as it suits the ecclesiastical leadership.
An attempt to gloss over these contradictions even more is also found in the latest falsification of the Bible where this commandment has been changed from "You shall not kill" to "You shall not murder." When we look at this from a legal point of view, it looks like the following: There is no justification for murder because it is a particularly reprehensible act of killing. But governmental law has also found a lot of justifications for "killing," among other things, particularly where the leadership is concerned. This is probably why the word "kill" was taken out of the commandments of God, so that a justification, when required, could be interpreted into it.


The sacrificial mass -
a crass and mystically elevated practice of pagan thought in the blood sacrifice

A question to the pagan insertions in the Bible that were then taken over by Church Christianity:
In the second program, you explained about paganism's belief in sacrifices. But isn't the celebration of mass in church also a kind of sacrificial mass built around pagan concepts?

Answer: What is being addressed here is the central and worst falsification of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. In the so-called "sacrifice of the mass," the Church sees the symbolic re-enactment of the blood sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, but without the blood. At every mass celebrated, the blood sacrifice is again portrayed in theme and symbol. The concept of sacrifice is of ancient pagan origin. Originally, these were human sacrifices, then they became animal sacrifices, and then it again became a human sacrifice, namely, the sacrifice of the Son of God. He is supposed to have come to earth to die as the "sacrificial lamb," so that mankind could be "reconciled with God." This is how it was announced by Paul and adopted by the Church over the centuries. This is why practically every Catholic today believes in this. If someone were to ask, "Why did Jesus come to the earth?" the most frequent answer given is: "to die for us, because only through this could He redeem us."
But Jesus of Nazareth did not come to earth to die; He came to found the Kingdom of Peace, the Kingdom of God, on earth. He came to bring people the "Glad Tidings," the teaching that leads people into a life in the Spirit of God, into peace, into the great unity of life; and above all, it is a teaching that leads people to God in their inner being. We know this from the divine revelations given through Gabriele for today's time. But we also know this, in part, from some passages of the gospels, in particular, from the apocryphal scripts.
This blood sacrifice, this "blood mysticism," so to speak, came into so-called Christianity through Paul. Belief in the idea of sacrifice does not represent the teaching of Jesus, or any Christian teaching, but a Pauline teaching. And this is, by far, the worst falsification of the teachings of Jesus. Because here, it is done as if there were a wrathful God, who is so brutal and cruel, that He requires His own Son as a sacrifice of expiation, and for this reason, sent Him to earth. Can it get any worse or more brutal than that?


"Blood sacrifice" also in war?
Soldiers should sacrifice themselves for the "Fatherland."
"The canons of war" as the "speaking instruments of the calling grace" of God?

Apropos the concept of "blood sacrifices," in the commandments it says: "You shall not kill." This commandment was rather recently changed to: "You shall not murder." Assuming the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church are for war, even if it is only a defensive war, then couldn't we look upon the act of shooting people, of killing other people with a weapon, as a human sacrifice that is carried out to rescue or free a state? This would correspond to the claim that "you can kill, but not murder." So, isn't the concept of blood sacrifice also a part of war?
There were certainly many army chaplains who brought this thought to the soldiers in the first and second world wars, in the sense that the soldiers should lay down their life, even sacrifice themselves, for their fatherland. Cardinal Faulhaber, who later was formalized as an alleged resistance fighter against the Third Reich, said as an army chaplain during the first world war: "The canons of war are the speaking instruments of the calling grace of God." 30 This statement carries the thought that war is a process of purification, whereby the moral shortcomings of the people are washed pure in war, and that the soldier should lay down his life and sacrifice himself for this higher goal. The macabre in this lies in the fact that such army chaplains stood on both sides of the front and said the same thing to all the soldiers who then slaughtered each other.
So, blood sacrifice as a thought is actually still a current and relevant thought - but this doesn't make it any less pagan. Because, what did Jesus say as Peter took up the sword?: "Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Mt.26:52). This was clearly a warning to us human beings that when we apply violence, this is not in keeping with the spirit of God, but that we will then have to harvest this seed, ourselves.

It is notable that Jesus said this in a so-called defensive situation. Despite the fact that His life was being threatened, He told His disciple to put his sword back. The Church would say: "Hit back. Beat 'em up! You may defend yourself and you may lead a justified war." The whole teaching of a "justified war" is actually exposed as un-Christian through this verse in the Bible, through these very words of Jesus of Nazareth.
But the Church is a bit cunning in this. It doesn't simply say: "We're all for a defensive war," instead, it says: "As a last resort - only when all else fails." The only problem with this is that history teaches us that we have never really used up all other options first - not by a long shot. Instead, it seems the hypocrisy in the Catholic Church simply has no bounds.


The hypocrisy of the Catholic Church takes on extreme forms.
Popes publicly proclaim: A praise to the Inquisition; genocide in the conquest of South America is "a happy guilt," etc.

From this discussion, we can see that facts are clouded and obscured to such an extent, that the hypocrisy of the Church is hardly noticed. But what we are witnessing today can hardly be termed anything but hypocrisy. For example, when the current pope says that he is against embryonic research because he wants "to protect life," and yet, this is the same pope who then sees to it that those he protects in this way are killed in a war that he sanctions, by soldiers who are blessed by his field chaplains.

This hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is also expressed in the fact that the current pope deliberately wants to be connected with Benedict XV, his predecessor by name, who allegedly stood so resolutely for peace in Europe. During the First World War, Benedict XV, head of his church at that time, repeatedly and publicly mourned the disaster of the war that was destroying Europe. However, what did he personally do about it? He saw to it that on both sides - in France and in Germany and in all the states that were engaged in war - the presence of military chaplains was particularly strengthened. Why didn't he simply excommunicate the statesmen who participated in the war?

Meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI has brought hypocrisy and schizophrenia to new heights. It was he who recently defended the Inquisition. A few weeks before his election to the papacy, he gave a rather brash interview on the ARD German public television program "Contrasts" on March 3, 2005. There he explained: "We stand in a line of continuity with the Inquisition." One can hardly believe that he expressed this sentence in as relaxed a manner as he did. But it gets even more incredible, because in the next breath he spoke in the following sense: "It cannot be denied that the Inquisition brought a certain step of progress to mankind, namely in the sense that those accused were questioned beforehand and given a hearing."
Isn't this cynicism at its purest form, when we consider the fact that the hearings taking place during the Inquisition were connected with the worst kind of torture, during which so many "questioned" died?
It is an affront to the public when a cardinal, who is a follower of the Inquisition - at that time he was still the leader of the Congregation for the Roman Doctrine of Faith - would so uninhibitedly and openly praise the Inquisition as progress. What kind of reaction would someone get if he were to describe the brutality of a dictator in Chile or even of the Nazis in the Third Reich as progress because in the torture chambers of, in this case, Pinochet or Hitler, people were given a brief hearing before being shot?
"Who Is Sitting on the Chair of Peter?" Such statements as these from the pope give a lot of food for thought ...
And this cardinal who more or less supports all this is now the pope, the so-called "Holy Father." This means that as far as the Church is concerned, you can be for killing, for slaughtering - just be sure to serve the Church, and then you are "holy."
This can be seen in numerous examples, including those of the predecessor of the current pope, John Paul II, whom many hope will be canonized. At the time of the 500 year anniversary of the evangelization of South America, he said:
The conquest of Latin America by the Catholic Spanish conquerors may have shown certain violent characteristics, and as such, should be condemned. However, because this truly admirable evangelization contributed to an expansion in the annals of salvation, in the end, it actually has become a "happy guilt." 31
What kind of cynicism lies behind such an insolent statement of "happy guilt" in face of the many cruelties carried out during the conquest of South America that cost countless lives?


Outgrowths of institutionalized superstitions: Black Madonnas, host pictures - "Means of salvation and healing"?
Crawling for indulgences - Becoming free of sin?

Question:
In an auction on Internet, a Black Madonna from Altötting and a sheet of "host pictures" were offered. What are these?

Answer: Building on this question, we can go right on asking: If a person were to take a small piece of this so-called "host picture" and eat it - does the person now have the possibility to become holy or saintly? And if a person were to buy a so-called "Black Madonna" and gnaw at it daily by shaving off some particles from its body and then ingesting them, can the person come into a blessed or holy state?
But first, what is a Black Madonna? And second, what are these "host pictures" all about?
The custom of the Black Madonna was still around even into the 20th century. Someone may think this custom has to do with the Middle Ages - but no, it apparently is still of interest today, as we can conclude from the question.

We looked this up in the Internet and promptly found an answer: On the website of the Catholic Church in Einsiedeln, Switzerland, we could read the following: "Small shavings were grated off the Madonna and eaten." Or, more exactingly, from a work of reference compiled for Dr. Edmund Müller's collection of relics called "Mittel zum Heil" ("Means of Salvation and Healing,") we can read the following:
A very striking possibility to consume a remedy when in need was to take shavings from the clay figure of a "Black Madonna." Still well known into the 20th century, the Black Madonnas came from Altötting in Bavaria and among the folk, were known as "bodily" copies of grace from Einsiedeln in Switzerland. The latter were held to be miraculous and healing because the clay supposedly had soil and mortar from the Lady Chapel mixed into it as well as relic particles. This held true only for those scraping Black Madonnas that were sold by the convent itself, carrying the seal of authenticity on its back.3 2
One can only hope that with these relic pieces mixed in, no corpses were involved.
In terms of the so-called "host pictures," these were pictures of saints that people actually swallowed. They looked like a sheet of postage stamps, and were swallowed like a communion host.
"Host pictures" could earlier be acquired at many different places of pilgrimage. The buyer assumed that these sheets had been blessed and sanctified by a cleric and if possible, had also been touched by the revered image of grace at the place of purchase.33

Back then, there were relics, but also the "relics by touch." As an example, in Bamberg, a nail from the cross of Christ supposedly had been found, that is, it showed up, and then thousands upon thousands of nails were produced which briefly touched that particular nail from the cross. These were then the "relics by touch" and they had, of course, double value. Everything doubled in value if it had come into contact with a relic. This is why the buyers were keen to acquire such relics, including these "host pictures."
In danger or need, the individuals would swallow little pictures the size of postage stamps or give them to their sick cattle. The pictures that were used as sacraments were perceived as a kind of medicine, which bore great powers through priestly blessing.
The book goes on to say that "sacraments" are officially described by the Church as:
... sanctified and blessed objects that promise the believers protection and blessing, keeping them from evil and giving them hope for healing. To these objects belong oil, salt, palm fronds, crosses and pilgrimage medallions ...

And, of course, the so-called host pictures, as well as the Black Madonnas that were scraped.
Still in 1903 the Roman Congregation of Rites permitted the application of host pictures ... The custom of swallowing small pictures has its origin in ancient times.34
So swallowing holy pictures was also a pagan custom.
If any other religious community were to do such a thing, their mental state would come under serious question. And, if anyone were to recommend and offer a Black Madonna in Internet for the purpose of eating particles from it to promote some kind of healing process, surely in any community, the health authorities would have to intervene. There is not only a certain madness to this, but it is even a health hazard.

We received yet another question concerning such odd customs:
Where does the custom of crawling on one's knees to gain absolution come from - like they do in Altötting or on the steps in Rome?
Answer: This particular custom certainly is related to doing penance. The people seem to believe that by imposing certain expiatory measures on themselves, by making a certain external effort, which at the same time should cause pain, that somehow, they become free of their sins or of punishment for their sins.
Such practices also existed in paganism. This was done in connection with the so-called confession, which was present in Jainism, in the Cult of Anaetis in the Samothracian Kabira mysteries, or with Isis. We can read the following in a book by Karl-Heinz Deschner entitled "Der gefälschte Glaube":
... where before the threats of the priests, the repentant sinners threw themselves onto the temple floor, rammed the holy portal with their heads, and pleaded to the pure ones with kisses and made pilgrimages ...
(According to Deschner, the practices just described were in advanced religions):
... while in the primitive religions after an admission of sin, wood splinters and straw were spun in the air and everyone rejoiced, for all sins had been scattered with the wind.35
In some mystery cults, people would admit their guilt before the priest as the representative of divinity, in order to become free again of the consequences. "In the Isis religion," writes Deschner, "where one found remission from apostasy" - that is, remission from renouncing one's faith - "there was a complete practice of indulgences, as later developed in Catholicism." 36

Doctrinal statements of the Holy See:
Absurdities and unbelievable nonsense.
Whoever doesn't believe is "excommunicated," damned and condemned

We have already addressed the fact that certain things taught by the Catholic Church have to be believed according to its regulations. If a person doesn't believe in these, then he is eternally damned.

According the book by Neuner and Dupuis, in No. 1005, we read:
The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that "no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans" but also Jews, heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the "eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels," unless before the end of their life they are joined to it ... (No. 1005) 37
What kind of book is "Neuner-Roos" or Neuner-Dupuis? It would be interesting to read what it says on the inside cover of Neuner-Roos:
This book contains the most important documents about the Catholic belief from the times of the apostolic creed until today. But this is not about going through two thousands years of church history and portraying all the dogmatic strife and decisions, but to take those church teaching documents that have a particularly special meaning for the church design of divine revelation and publish them in a German edition ... Particularly today it is the right and duty of the believer to know what the Church has itself said and is saying in the documents of the doctrines of faith.38

Dear reader, perhaps you would like to check this out for yourself? The book by Neuner-Roos is available. It is entitled "The Teaching of the Catholic Church as Contained in Her Documents." This book is truly extraordinarily informative reading material. You will be astounded, and perhaps, through this, you may even be moved to follow the recommendation found in the book of Revelations in the Bible to leave this congregation.
We are not examining these unbelievable oddities and cruelties because there is some kind of institution or clan that prescribes such things for their members or adherents. Anyone can believe what he wants and be happy with it in our state. The reason why we are taking a closer look at all these oddities, these unbelievable, one can say, perversities, is because they have been labeled Christian and are supposed to have something to do with Jesus of Nazareth. As Christians we feel called upon to set the record straight. It is enough that Jesus, the Christ, has been slandered, mocked, ridiculed and abused for 2000 years. It is time to bring an end to this abuse. As Original Christians, we have decided to do this and we ask you, dear reader, to analyze what you read here and ask yourself: Who is actually sitting on the Chair of Peter? Does it really have anything at all to do with Jesus, the Christ? Or isn't the truth rather the opposite of what the one who sits there claims?


Shouldn't the "representative of God," at the helm of the globe, be able to command the elements?
Jesus of Nazareth could

We received the following question:
I read that Australians were being called to set aside July 24 as a national day to pray for rain. Three broad Church networks have united to invite Australia's Christians to engage in 40 days of prayer in the face of a severe drought.39 If I ask God for rain, then doesn't this mean that God is responsible for whether it rains or not? So, where does this conviction come from? Isn't it a pagan belief?
And a further question:
Do the Original Christians pray for rain?

Answer: In paganism, in the polytheism of idolatry, it was customary to have several gods responsible for the weather, and especially for rain. With the Teutons it was the God Thor; with the Egyptians it was the God Seth who later became the God Baal; with the Greeks, Zeus was the god of weather, and with the Mesopotamians they were the gods Anu and Enlil, just to name a few.
Back then, people believed the gods were responsible for the weather and because of this, these gods needed to have sacrifices brought to them to positively influence the weather. So if the Catholic Church now calls on everyone to pray to God for rain, this is very much in line with pagan tradition.
In this pagan tradition it was also customary to have certain persons claim to be representatives of the gods. We need only think of the pharaohs in Egypt. But this is also the case in Catholicism, where the pope is seen as the "representative of Christ." In Neuner-Roos we can read the following about the pope: "The Roman Pontiff has primacy in the whole world" (No. 349) and in the crowning rites of the pope that reached into the 20th century, as the pope was introduced into his office he was told: "Know that you are the father of all princes and kings, at the helm of the globe." 40
This statement was last used at the coronation ceremony of Pope Paul IV in 1963. But while the pope was still at the helm of the globe, what did he actually direct? When we look around our world today, we could ask if he was the one at the helm of epidemics, or of the hardships in our world? Or was he at the helm of the natural disasters, the floods that have been experienced? Is he at the helm of all the disasters that befell human beings, nature and the animals?

According to such a logical conclusion this would mean that he is at the helm of the disasters that are visited upon the people. But still today, whether he claims to be at the helm of the globe or not, he is also revered as a "saint." So then he must be able to control the rain, the flood disasters, the illnesses, the earthquakes - or even, for example, the tsunami. He must be able to control the elements; it actually should be rather simple for him to do.
He lets himself be revered and addressed as the "representative of God." But if the effect of his representation should be as just mentioned, there are only two possibilities: Either he only pretends to be the representative of God but has no such power - he cannot even heal his own illnesses - or what happens on earth, actually happens with his participation. But then, he would not be the representative of the God of love, of the Father of all people, and he could only be the representative of the god of the underworld.
So, who is sitting on the Chair of Peter?
In the Bible we can read "Subdue the earth" (Gen.1:28). What does this mean? We realize that if the pope is at the helm of the globe, then he must be able to control the earth - the floods and so on.
Jesus commanded the elements. In Matthew there's the story about how the disciples were sitting in a boat on the lake and were afraid of the storm that rose and Jesus called out and "rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a dead calm" (Mt.8:26). So, Jesus could do it, but the "representative of God" cannot.
Perhaps, he can, but only in one direction. This is what we have been examining from many different angles: Destroy everything. We have talked about killing, about abuse, about exploitation, destruction. In face of the past and present deeds of the Holy See, to "subdue the earth" must mean, all in all, to destroy the earth. For this is how it has always been done by the Catholic Church and the representatives of this mindset.

Another question was included in this letter to us: Do the Original Christians pray for rain?
Answer: No, the Original Christians do not pray for rain. We know that God has given us a wonderful planet. Our task is to live in harmony with nature and the world of animals. If this sentence "subdue the earth" had been understood correctly, it would still be a beautiful planet today, because the people would have lived in unity with nature and the animal world. But unfortunately, this is not the case. Our environment is being increasingly destroyed and this has led to climatic changes - none of which is God's fault, but our fault. We human beings have caused this destruction, and in part, even willfully.

So when Original Christians pray, then they don't pray that it rain or snow, or that there be good weather. Jesus taught us to pray in such a way that the Will of God can take place, and specifically, this means that we pray, for example, for nature that is suffering so much. However, a prayer can become effective only when we strive to apply it in the deed, and this means that we ask ourselves in this particular case what we can do to help alleviate the suffering of nature, and then do it.


We need neither a Catholic nor a Protestant Church. We need Jesus, the Christ. The mighty Spirit of love dwells in every person

Jesus, the Christ brought us the lowest common denominator. He taught us, for example: "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Mt.7:12). This sentence is generally known as the "Golden Rule." Said in a different way, this means: What you don't want others to do to you, don't do to anyone else, either. If this were kept by all people worldwide, we would no longer need a Catholic Church that practices paganism. We wouldn't need the Lutheran Church either, which is really an appendage of the Catholic Church, anyway.

We need only Jesus, the Christ. And Jesus taught us to go into a quiet room and to talk to God, our Father, there.
Because God is the Spirit of love.
God is the Spirit of peace.
God is the Spirit of unity.
The mighty Spirit of love dwells in every person, for every person is the temple of the eternal Spirit, the spirit of our eternal Father. In the quiet chamber, when we become calm and quiet and pray to within and fulfill our prayers, then step by step we will also live in the commandments of God and in the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. And then we change to the positive, to the good, and the great, mighty spirit of our Father can be active through us.
This is, in general terms, the teaching of the Original Christians.
From Jesus, the Christ, we have heard: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Or, what you don't want others to do to you, don't do to anyone else either - neither person, nor animal, nor plant.
Whoever fulfills the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, lets everything on, in, and over the earth live, because the life is God. Whoever wantonly destroys and kills is acting against the love of God.