Theologian N° 2, updated on 28.8.2022
Many traces of knowledge about reincarnation or reembodiment can also be found in the Bible. The Epistle of James warns, for example, that our tongue can cause a “fire“ that sets the “wheel of birth” in motion again. (3:6)
The doctrine of reincarnation is related to the “law of sowing and reaping”, which also includes the righteousness: “What a person sows he will reap.” This sentence is also found in the Bibles of the Church (Galatians 6:7). The application of the sentence “What a person sows that he will reap” could become a decisive key to understanding one’s own path in life or one’s own fate and in order to be able to improve many things for the better.
Jesus of Nazareth and the first early Christians were familiar with this “law of sowing and reaping”, as is demonstrated in this edition of The Theologian. This in turn presupposes that there was already a “life” before this earthly human life and that there is also a “further life” after this earthly life. And with that the trace is laid to the original knowledge of humanity about the possibilities of reincarnation. And whoever follows this trail will also be revealed one apparent “secret” after the other.
Everything is important: every act, every word, every thought, every one sensation, because everything can also be called “energy”. What we do, say, think and feel are the seeds in the field of our life. And no energy is lost in the process. So a “seed” either sprouts in this life or later in the other worlds or in a further earthly life. If we have “sown” positive things, positive things will come towards us accordingly. If we have “sown” negative things, this usually does not come back to us immediately. Instead, we keep getting help to turn around and “clear up” this seed. This also includes making amends for what is still possible so that we do not have to harvest the negative things we have caused ourselves. So every person and every group of people receives cues and warnings, the messages of which should help them to prevent an impending stroke of fate in good time. That's the mercifulness of God. However, if these hints and reminders are rejected, sooner or later our negative causes will hit us like a boomerang.
The following edition of The Theologian is written in the form of a detailed discussion on the topic, which gives experiences and possible answers to many questions, especially with regard to interested readers, whose thoughts were shaped by the Catholic or Protestant milieu and the customary beliefs, which are often discussed herein. The fact that the law of sowing and reaping weighs exactly and is therefore quite complex, corresponds to the individual people in their deeds, words, thoughts and feelings, to all of which something is added in every moment.
In addition, it is also easy to select only individual chapters or paragraphs, for which the following table of contents gives an orientation. While in the first part the main topic is the comprehensive cosmic law of sowing and reaping, this is followed up by the second part in which – based on early Christianity and the statements of Bibles – a more intensive discussion especially with the content of reincarnation and the possibilities connected with it is carried out.
Table of Contents:
There is No Such Thing
as a “Mystery of God”
The Journalist: The Catholic and Evangelical-Protestant faith knows nothing about reembodiment or reincarnation. You were a Protestant pastor and today you believe in reincarnation. How did that come about? [in Germany, the Lutheran Church is the primary Protestant Church and is referred to as Evangelical]
The Theologian: I wanted to live as a Christian and follow Jesus of Nazareth, and I first believed, the teaching of the possible reincarnation was not Christian. As a theology student and later as a pastor, I became more and more aware of, how great the tensions and contradictions are between the Protestant teaching and Jesus of Nazareth, as I knew him from the Bible. For a while, I tried to reconcile the two, but one day, I was faced with the choice: either Lutheran or Christian. Both together I could not agree upon no more. I decided to quit the job of pastor and left the church a short time later. Today I work as a freelance theologian at funerals and in the journalistic field, and I live in an Original Christian community, whose concern is the life according to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus of Nazareth.
Since that time I also learned about writings about Jesus and early Christianity outside of the Bible, from which I never heard during my study [more on that topic down in the second part]. According to these writings, Jesus and the first Christians were also aware of reembodiment or reincarnation. The goal of the path, which Jesus of Nazareth taught, it is, however, not that the souls of humans reincarnate again and again into human bodies, but that they return again “home” – to their eternal homeland. This homeland, in which they live according to the principles of equality, liberty, brotherliness and the unit of all life, was vacated by some of the spirit beings living there, to create a different and better world. But this attempt led to ever greater inequality, to hierarchies, more and more to a degeneration with ever further low points and finally to the emergence of the material world known to us, which is characterized by being born and dying, while the soul in man is immortal and belongs to another world, just her eternal home. In this sense, Jesus of Nazareth also taught: “There are many rooms in my Father’s house. I go there to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2). This is in contrast to some Eastern religions and world views, in which the dissolution of all forms is sought or taught as the religious goal. There it is also believed that a human soul can for example incarnate in an animal or in a plant. According to the early Christian teaching, the incarnation of a human soul is only possible in a new human body. And this is, how it is taught for example by the Islamic Druze.
The Journalist: The possibility of reincarnation is seen as a logical consequence of a belief that reads “What a person sows, he will reap“. Accordingly, a “harvest” in this life can be the result of a “seed” in a previous life. And which in this life is sown, can come up perhaps only in the next or in one of the next lives. Is this belief expressed correctly?
The Theologian: Yes. But sowing and reaping also happens within just one earthly life. The harvest often takes place immediately after sowing. Sometimes however incarnations later. In principle I believe that there are no coincidences. I believe that everything that comes our way, has a cause in the past.
The Journalist: Does this belief have practical consequences?
The Theologian: Yes. For example, there are life situations that hurt. I then ask myself: Why did this hit me? And: What can I change so that it is not repeated or negative consequences are mitigated? If I understand events in my life as effects on certain causes planted by myself, I get to know myself better and take responsibility for all situations in my life. That is what we must do. And the next steps are: Make the most of it and initiate change. That sounds very simple in this general form of course. Anyone who has experience with it, knows, however, that it is sometimes difficult to achieve such a positive attitude towards life.
The Journalist: Now there are completely different life situations and fates. Some live in material prosperity, others have to fight for survival every day. One feels lucky, another miserable. Does this way of life that you just mentioned, apply to all situations?
The Theologian: If it wasn’t so, one would have to ask: If I am not responsible for my fate, who is then? Can I blame one or more of my fellow human beings? Maybe a political system, to which I was subject from childhood? Or God? Or a dark power of fate?
The Journalist: Many people think so. Others speak of a “mystery of God”. When asked “Why?”, there is often no final answer, so they say.
The Theologian: There a lot is ascribed to an alleged “mystery of God”, but this only distracts from the fact that one does not know the answer oneself or does not want to hear the answer, because it does not fit into one’s belief concept. According to this, human causes could be found for certain situations. However, sometimes it is a supposedly so-called “unfathomable secret”. In order to cope with an emergency or a fate, external actions are then often offered, for example so-called “sacraments” or ceremonies, which, however, do not help at all. The mystical way to God through our own inside, God in us and we in God, who also confronts us with our shadow first, is not well known in the church or it is rejected, because it doesn't match the respective dogma or religious confession.
But the causes for a hardship or a fate lie in these shadows of ours, not with God. God is the source of strength in every person and He is present in all forms of life and He has no secrets. He also helps us in every situation, and one can entrust him with every problem in heartfelt prayer, because He knows the solution. With His power, generally speaking, the shadows are transformed into light. Mystics sometimes speak of Him being closer to us than our arms and legs.
The Journalist: So there is an explanation or a meaning for everything?
The Theologian: Yes. But the Church has led humankind into ignorance and despair since approx. 1700 years. And instead of humbly admitting that their priests and ministers lost the right approach to God, they still arrogantly claim that nobody can know more than the Church. At the same time, there is hardly a place of greater error than the institutions of the Church. And they then boldly refer to their own ignorance as the “Mystery of God”. It is part of the original knowledge of humankind that the fate of the world and of individual people was caused by them themselves. And whenever prophets or wise people wanted to reveal the “mystery of God” during the last 1700 years, aggressive action was taken to prevent this, because it would have shaken the Church’s position of power and rule. This has not changed to this day. In doing so, the Church is also practically trying to prevent experiences of God that would open people’s eyes. But there is no “mystery of God”, just a dark mystery of the Church, and this is darker than most people can imagine. The sexual offences of priests on children only slightly fathoms which powers are at work with the cassock wearers. However, those who trust in the closeness of God in their heart, can experience Him quite freely. For example, God is the inner help in suffering, and He always shows the next step in outer life – through our fellow human beings, through events in our everyday life, through animals and nature or through our conscience. However, whoever however looks for God in churches made of stone or in a communion wafer, will never find him.
The Journalist: Have you experienced God's inner help in such an informal way?
The Theologian: Yes. I know it from my own experiences, and I also know it from others, who have had it worse than me. Put simply, I always made myself aware: In each negativity there is also something positive; the presence of God is in all things. This is, how I found the next step out of negative situations again and again.
The Journalist: To apply the “law of seed and harvest” in all life situations, to find the positive in all negativity and with the assistance of God always master life again - it sounds so simple, as if it were a simple basic rule of science. You suggested nevertheless that in practice it is not always so simple.
The Theologian: It would usually not be that difficult. We find the law of cause and effect also as principle of action and reaction in physics: Every action produces a reaction, and every occurrence was caused by a previous occurrence. And no energy is lost in the process. What is easily verifiable in simple physical experiments, one only needs to transfer to the area of our thoughts and feelings, because these are also energy. Thoughts and feelings can also be understood as effects on previous causes and at the same time as new causes that in turn produce effects.
This is also part of the Christian teachings. In the Bibles – with Paul – it is called even literally: “Do not be deceived! God will not be mocked. For what a person sows he will reap” (Letter to Galatians 6:7). In other words: What someone does or fails to do, but also what he speaks, thinks and feels, has consequences. And seen from the other side: Everything that happens to you, is a consequence of what you caused at some point before, even if it is through the usually massively underestimated power of your thoughts. Therefore, the plain and simple question “Why?” leads ever further, if we look closer at certain events or situations in our life. Why did this and that happen? Or why, for example, did one thing fail and another succeed? Which thoughts and feelings has someone into certain doing inside put and this doing thereby for the success or failing affects?
What does not always make it easy are often diverse causes, all of which have a certain share in an effect. At the beginning, one of the causes may be identified here. But if you don't ignore, what happens day by day in your own life with regard to our mastery of life, you can gradually break down and work through a whole complex. It’s similar to a ball of yarn. One has once a end of thread found, can be untangled by therefore in time the whole ball. Every day brings its help. Because it is always valid: There is no such thing as a coincidence. So why did I meet this person today, for example, or why did this call come, or why does someone think differently today than they did a week ago or why did the cup fall off the table, etc., etc.?
The Journalist: Isn’t there a danger that someone, who lives by this principle, will despair of himself or continually think, he is a bad person?
The Theologian: Then he would fundamentally misunderstand something. Because if you consistently follow this path, life will initially be really exciting. And you learn to understand yourself even better. It is important not to judge yourself, if you discover negative things in yourself that you may not have perceived before. Because we all still have our larger or smaller faults. And you could say: We are here on the earth to learn. And that means in practical terms, for example: A person becomes happier when he finds and can work through the causes that led to a “misfortune“. And that also means that a minor misfortune in this respect is not followed by a major one, but that the path of life is increasingly characterized by satisfaction and happiness. This also includes not repeating a recognized misconduct, even if it does happen in the meantime, or someone literally had to go “through hell” more often. Only those who are willing to take responsibility for their mistakes, even if they often do not yet have an overview of the whole background, can also reduce them step by step. And it is one of the experiences on this path that you are always shown the next step. Because everything all at once could usually not be managed at all. And here I also had to learn not to despair of myself, to learn the patience and also to forgive myself when some of the things, I didn't like about myself, only slowly improved and didn't change immediately. However, it was and is always necessary to make a clear decision about the goal.
The Journalist: Could that be called “self-respect”?
The Theologian: Yes. And if someone has no “self-respect” and feels inferior or is very dependent on others in his state of mind, then you can also ask here: Who has robbed him of his self-respect and his sense of worth? Or: How did he get into such an emotional dependency? Wasn't he himself the culprit here too? Through his own behavior and through his unresolved weaknesses?
The Journalist: That would then confirm the experiences of psychotherapy: Feelings of inferiority or dependence can not be turned off by “pressing a button”. They need to be worked off.
And here, too, it
depends on the causes, whether it goes faster or just takes time. Usually it has
to do with one or several of our fellow humans, with whom we feel internally unfree, for example. This lack of freedom would then be the weak point here.
In addition, an example of where self-respect perhaps lacking is the basis: When I ask my neighbor for forgiveness for every little mistake, then I usually want subliminal encouragement and understanding from him and with it some form of energy. And that is then that larger problem, not so much the individual errors, which one can notice by the other one not taking this badly at all. And whether it in was an error at all?
Anyone who discovers such dependent behavior in himself and notices that he feels literally compelled to approach the other in a submissive manner, could instead ask the soul of his neighbor for forgiveness in silent prayer through Christ, if there really should be a reason for it. Because in the long run it depends only on the soul. And at the same time, he becomes stronger inside, because he was able to curb his thoughts of inferiority or obsession and did not allow himself to be controlled by them, for example to beg for energy in the form of attention from his neighbor.
But the further question would be also here: Why did things get to that state? What is the reason, for example, of a weakness in character or a feeling of inferiority or something similar? And this is not always, but often in what we have brought with us from past lives into this earthly life and that has not yet been processed. One clue could, for example, lead to church “confession models” with which one was once bullied or with which one has bullied others and where on was often persuaded, he was guilty and one's self-esteem was taken away. At some point we will definitely be confronted again with everything that we have not yet cleared up, that is, not yet brought into order again.
But that was only one special example on the subject of “self-respect”. Some people have completely different problems; they may be unscrupulous, feel superior to others, and always blame their neighbor.
The Journalist: Does that have something to do with different ideas about God?
Yes. The idea of an
“angry God” has already caused an inexpressible amount of damage in many souls
But if you are always aware of this: “I am loved by God, the Father-Mother-God” or “I am a son, a daughter of the living All-one God”, in which the consciousness of his own worth grows very gradually, without confusing it with arrogance or selfishness. The more one develops self-respect and inner independence from this attitude, the easier it becomes to admit actual mistakes and weaknesses that still exist. And the next steps are: Find the root and “clear things up” and set a new positive “life program” and gradually actualize it. I also do this with so-called “consciousness aids”. For example: “Christ is in me. Christ is in my neighbor.” Or: “Christ helps me every moment.” This also applies to apparently small things. Or: “I want to please God alone and not anyone else.” Or in prayer: “What would you, Christ, do now in this situation?”
Those who do it that way gradually develop the properties that also correspond to their infinitely great intrinsic value. It gives me great pleasure, when I have thus become a little bit more free again. The durable difficulties result from the fact that most humans would like to rather keep some of the negative and finally their ego. These include, for example, the desire to exercise power over others or to continue to live out one or the other problematic passion, which however does not set one free, but in the truest sense of the word creates pain over and over again. Arrogance and overconfidence are also part of it, and finally the mask that one does not want to take off in front of others, because one expects certain things from them.
It also very often happens that someone fluctuates: Once time he would like to come to terms with himself and dig up, what's hidden, but another time not so much. These fluctuations can also prolong a suffering, and they often prevent God or Christ from being able to really help you. Especially if you don't address weaknesses and mistakes for a long time, or hardly address them, although you know about them, they then often become gateways for a more serious fate. Some then doubt the grace of God, although it was actually they themselves, who didn't let the love of the omnipresent cosmic primordial power of God near them for many years. Because seen from God, everyone gets the same assistance for mastering his life, because each and everyone are equally valuable.
The Journalist: When you say: “Everyone gets the same help from God”, then don’t you expose yourself to the reproach of uttering nice words that do not stand up to reality?
The Theologian: For many, God is an “external being” and they always expect outside help. Or they believe: If they perhaps eat a host at the Church supper, many things would be better. But this external process is of no use at all. Because God is just as present in a blade of grass as in wafers – whether these are allegedly “blessed” and allegedly became “transformed” or not, whether they have been chewed upon by a mouse or a rat in an old Church basement or whether they have been ceremonially kept in a Church container or whatever. And nothing would improve if I started chewing on a blade of grass. Because God is closest to us in ourselves. There we would have to look for Him first of all, not in the lying fraudulent work of priests and theologians. If I make myself still conscious then that God is also in each problem, in each situation, in each human being, even in whoever causes me difficulties that he is in each animal, in each plant or in each item, then positive communication can develop between God in me and God around me, because God is also the unity. And this communication results in a variety of help in everyday life. Suddenly I know or suppose inside me: “That is now the help of God”, and I know, what I can now do.
In addition, it is also help and
often also a prerequisite, if I succeed in becoming quiet and in this way
silence the many restless thoughts or take them before Christ in heartfelt
prayer toward my inner self and leave them there without doubt – symbolically
speaking on the inner “altar”. An answer or a partial answer can be found
whenever someone is sincerely ready to find the solution for the problem or
the next required step in this situation – according to the motto: In every
problem there is already a solution. The advisor and helper is – regardless of
possible external help – ultimately always in us. Because since I caused the
problem myself at some point, I can solve it myself at some point. Yes, there is
no other way. God or Christ in us is always ready to help us. He is always
waiting for us. The situation could be compared to a telephone receiver that I
turn inward to my heart. And I pray “Christ in me”, and from there, from within,
an impulse may also come, which helps further if it can penetrate the blockages
that people build up with their intellect.
And if you find it difficult, you can of course rely more on the fact that God speaks to us through many other mouths, when the message correspondents with the Ten commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. And these mouths could be all around us. In this regard a seemingly coincidental talk arises and in this discussion a fellow person tells me exactly what I need to hear. Or I see – again apparently by chance – this and that, and suddenly it is clear to me: This could be the answer to my question that is preoccupying me right now, and I notice it in my sensations: For me, that is also God’s answer, using my own perception. One could also say: God helps all around. But nobody can convince anyone of that. It is a matter of applying the rule of sowing and reaping to oneself and not to others; and in this way to gain positive experiences.
The Journalist: Why not with others?
The Theologian: When someone ponders, how the law of sowing and reaping affects others, the question of motive arises for me. Is there perhaps curiosity or a desire for sensation behind it, or does cynicism even play a role?
The Journalist: One motive could also be to help the other.
The Theologian: Yes. But how that is possible? As a former Evangelist official I was once responsible for a funeral after a crime. A heavily pregnant young woman was murdered in a robbery; the child in the womb also died. What triggered this sudden fate in the people affected by it? How could they go on living with it? And how far did it affect me? Was I even able to be a helpful conversation partner for relatives and friends? The woman and her killer knew each other. But as far as one could trace that back or was known to me, she had done nothing to him that could have made a connection to the attack. According to the masked man he was after the money and he became the cruel murderer, when the woman recognized him behind his mask.
How is help possible for everyone
involved after this terrible tragedy? A first approach could be: If we assume
that the murdered person's soul lives on in the afterlife: Would it then be of
help if relatives and friends on Earth fell into despair or hatred and could no
longer find their way out of this condition?
In the meantime I know people who have suffered a stroke of fate and for whom the knowledge of the law of sowing and reaping and of reincarnation is a real consolation, even if they do not know what the specific history is; or what may be underlying causes of its own. But they suspect that everything makes a certain sense and that there are connections that they do not yet understand. The relatives of a fatally injured person could, for example, suspect that their inner life plan might only last until then. And maybe the course for the future was not set well before the disaster. Or a situation loomed that he could not have mastered and that would have triggered new negative causes. It doesn't have to be like that, but it can be. No two situations are the same. Everything is known to be complex, but ultimately precise.
The father of a severely disabled boy once told me that he would be desperate if he could not have believed in a cause and a meaning for this fate. As it is, however, he has accepted this task that life set for him and has grown inwardly with it.
The Journalist: Does fate always have to do with previous lives?
If we start from reincarnation, then every person already brings his luggage
from earlier times with him into this earthly life. And then it just depends on
which course this life on Earth takes. Negative causes, which led to a fate, can
thus also be caused by actions in this life. But if not, then logically in one
or more of the earlier ones. The causes or “inputs” in our soul would draw us to
certain places and to certain people in this life – but always under the
spiritual sign that the fateful or causal among those involved is “cleared up”
this time, for example, through benevolence, through learning empathy,
tolerance, understanding and forgiveness. In this sense, all encounters in a
life and the point in time of birth and death also have to do with past lives,
and also the living conditions in between, that is, the residences in the realms
of the beyond. There every soul that strives for a new earthly life receives
information about the chances and risks of this plan of a possible new
incarnation. However, whether it accepts this or perceives it at all is up to
it; and also the goal that it has set itself for its next life as a soul in the
hereafter, for example, or the basic decision beforehand that it wants to
incarnate again in a human body created on Earth instead of continuing its path
in the beyond.
A relatively early death of a person can also be part of the requirements of his soul in the hereafter, so that a so-called early death does not have to go back to a serious negative cause, but can also be based on the life plan of the soul and the person. Remarkable research on children's previous lives was carried out by the Canadian professor of psychiatry Dr. Ian Stevenson (1918-2007) presented in 2,600 cases. His book is even called Reinkarnationsbeweise (Evidence for Reincarnation) in German. And in the German-speaking countries, for example, the book Indizienbeweise für ein Leben nach dem Tod und die Wiedergeburt by Dieter Hassler was published in 2011.
The following would then apply in principle: Does the soul use the chances in the respective earthly life to become happier from within and to make others happier, or does it add new negative causes to an existing soul guilt and thereby increase the complex of suffering? In eastern religions one would speak of Karma, which can be diminished or be increased. And it depends less on the external length of life than on the life content within the lived time on Earth.
The Journalist: Can events in a person’s life be predicted under these conditions?
The Theologian: One’s life develops according to certain perquisites, for instance, one’s own inputs, the own “seed”. But it is well known that people always have several options for making a decision. Therefore possible developments of the future could be pointed out – in the sense of major chances or dangers. Individual events can't be accurately foretold, however. Because no one can know in advance how someone else will actually decide in these situations and what they will then do or fail to do. And even in retrospect one can hardly grasp why, for example, a certain death occurred in this way and at this point in time and why fate did not go any other way. The interrelationships can be so extensive and varied, and there are always many aspects that have an impact here.
The Journalist: If there is a lot that people can hardly grasp, how would you understand your own attitude today? Have you found out a lot or just a little?
A large part of these
explanations was brought to the public over the course of time through a
prophet. The content is for those who believe in it, messages from the
“spiritual world”, one could also say from the Kingdom of God. The true prophets
of God of earlier times and of today and their differentiation from false
prophets are a topic for a separate edition of this publication. As a
theologian, I am repeating in my own words what I previously tested with my
heart and mind. I moved some things there for a few years and tried out some
things, so that my own experiences come into play.
That was not always like that. As a theology student, from a certain point on I no longer believed in the “true prophets of God” and in “revelations”. And also the theology itself was for me even then, to put it simply, only the study of human thoughts about God. For me at that time there were only different images of God, with which one could have certain different experiences. Even Jesus of Nazareth had merely a certain understanding of God for me during my studies, with which He was able to help many people though. But for me nothing was said about God himself. When I was studying theology, I felt like a person who thought materialistically, because I only felt certain about what was visible in front of my outer eyes, and for me there was not necessarily a contradiction between being a Christian and being an atheist.
But the person of Jesus of Nazareth occupied me again and again. I also had respect for some things that I couldn’t explain to myself at the time. But when they bothered me, I kept looking for a satisfactory explanation and began to check this and that. So gradually a reality behind the visible world was drawing closer.
What I am talking about here comes to a large extent only from the “spiritual knowledge” that I have heard, which I have, however, also tried out many times. But it does not yet come from an inner insight into invisible worlds, and with the help of my specialist knowledge I pass on some information as I received it myself. In this context I would like to refer primarily to the book This is My Word, Alpha and Omega. The Gospel of Jesus. The Christ-Revelation of Christ, which true Christians the world over have come to know, Würzburg 2011 (gabriele-publishing-house.com). Whereby “true Christians” is formulated to clearly distinguish it from the so-called Christianity of the Church institutions including the many free churches, where the original Christian teaching is massively falsified, up to the point of being reworked into its opposite, and where people who call themselves Christians are actually none at all when compared with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
The Journalist: What is meant by the initial title Revelation, which true Christians the world over have come to know?
The Theologian: Many people do not apply the law of cause and effect to their lives, nor are they aware of the possibility of reincarnation. They are often perplexed about their fate, without suspecting where to find the path on which they can master this life and ultimately find a happier and more satisfied life in the present and in the future.
The Journalist: Does the path to mastering life lead to the past?
The Theologian: Sooner or later the past shows up again in the present if it has not been dealt with. So what matters is the present.
The Journalist: What exactly does that mean?
The Theologian: If I know that there are
causes in my past for everything that hits or affects me today, then that helps
me not to fall into quarrels, reproaches or self-pity. In this way, I may become
aware of parts of my unresolved past that have contributed to the current
situation in my life and I have the chance today to change an earlier wrong
Basically I made the experience: If I don't find my own causes, I can at least find a “share” that I can clear up, so that things can look up again. If fellow human beings are involved, and they may very well have a large share of the blame for the situation, it is still important to find one’s own share. Forgiving someone else's share of guilt is another task, even if the other person has not yet asked for forgiveness.
The Journalist: Does that have something to do with believing in God?
The Theologian: The way to God always goes through my neighbor, my fellow human being, in that I make peace with him, for example by forgiving him – because God is also present in him. The fellow human being cannot be bypassed. However, those who do not know the law of sowing and reaping or do not want to apply it can come into situations, in which they instead hold God responsible for the suffering and can no longer believe in Him. Then as the situation solidifies or worsens, more negatives may build up. And the person concerned often falls into resignation or despair. It doesn’t have to come to that, when someone applies cause and effect relationships. Jesus of Nazareth knew about this and so did Paul, who wrote some books in the Bible. Jesus did not speak of a “mystery of God” as the churches do today.
The Journalist: If there are no “mysteries”: Why does God allow suffering and need?
The Theologian: Because God does not
intervene in the will of human beings, but instead invites or urgently
admonishes the person, to repent and do His will. One could also say: God always
intervenes with love. But for this He needs people who also recognize this will
in the world and implement it accordingly. And that boils down to everyone being
well and becoming as happy as they were, when God once created them as pure
beings. First of all, it is important that they are gradually led to
self-recognition; so that they first learn to understand who they have become
over time. We’ve already talked about this. This can lead to repentance, when
someone is ready to clear up his burdens or his bad attitudes or his sinfulness.
God helps us, we get closer to Him and we feel better.
Some now believe that it would be better if God intervened in people’s free will, because the suffering would then supposedly end earlier. I do not believe that. It would be of little use. Because at the next opportunity, the person compelled in this way, would then continue his wrongdoing, because he did not realize that it was wrong. Nor would he look for the way to rid himself of all negative things. Unfortunately, the effects of many bad things must first be suffered by those who caused them before they are no longer repeated. That is more than bitter and sad. But it shows countless experiences from history and also from individual life fates. But if at least then the repentance occurs, the next step has been taken. Unfortunately, very many people start to change something in their life only through their own suffering. And you have to say: Many not even then.
The Journalist: According to your words, God’s help can also come from within. Then why are there so many people who feel no help from God, but mainly despair, even though they pray over and over again, for example?
The Theologian: The help is also a
positive harvest of the seeds of an honest, positive prayer from the heart, if I
can describe it that way. However, many people have no patience, expect quick
results and plow their own good seeds right back in, if they do not receive
immediate help, which, for example, is only just ripening. It also depends on
whether you manage to become a little quieter inside, at least for a few
moments. Often it is only subtle sensations that form words or images that show
or suggest the next step. Many, however, do not allow God’s help to come in, let
alone be felt within them. Despite their prayers, their thoughts and feelings
continue to revolve in their misfortunes and in their assignments of guilt. And
prayers are more lip prayers than prayers from the heart and bring nothing or
not much. Also, God does not always help the way we want. And not all help is
I can also think of reports that God supposedly helped one person to achieve business success, while another is murdered, although he may have prayed to God shortly beforehand. I cannot and will not believe in a God who would make such differences, because that would be just one of the many terrible religious idols. The Creator-God, to whom I entrust myself, makes no distinction, and He helps in “big” and “small” matters. The alleged differences are based solely on people.
The Journalist: Earlier you spoke of a grave fate, a woman who was killed in a robbery. What did you say to the relatives of the murdered woman back then as a Protestant theologian as an employee of the Church at the time? And what would you say differently today if you came into this situation again?
The first thing to do here is to grasp the situation as much as possible: So how
are the relatives and friends, what feelings are there or maybe suppressed and
what the murder victim himself believed about earthly life and death and what
the relatives believe and where there are possible points of contact to what you
believe yourself, which then could be part of the leave-taking.
When pastors or priests say or celebrate something, they use statements from their teachings, but usually withhold the fact that most of the deceased would have to suffer forever in the ecclesiastical cosmos of violence of an alleged eternal hell, because on closer inspection very few fulfill the dogmatic conditions of the Churches for an alleged entry into heaven, especially in Catholicism. From this point of view, things are seldom honest, and normally the relatives do not know, who is approaching them as a pastor and what he has come up with, for example, how he is applying, keeping silent about or even speaking against church doctrine.
At that time as an Evangelical pastor, I compared the fate of the young woman with Jesus of Nazareth, who innocently suffered death by crucifixion and who, according to tradition in the Bibles, cried dying: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” So I wanted to comfort by wanting to pass on in the same way: “He didn't fare any better either.” But that’s not a real consolation. After all, what use is that if you want to be happy and happy again, when you hear that someone else is suffering just as badly or even worse? And I no longer consider such a comparison appropriate, since I have grasped a little more of the mission of Christ and the cross that Jesus of Nazareth had to carry.
Finding suitable and helpful words, when something as bad as a murder has happened requires a high degree of empathy for others. Many years after this event, I don’t want to commit myself to what might have been appropriate. However, one can always point out that the Creator-God always only wants the best for every person and every soul in every situation and always, symbolically speaking, extends His hand or shows the next possible step in the right direction, on Earth or for the relative now in the so-called afterlife.
The Journalist: The words of Jesus on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" still distresses many people.
The more impressively one can convey the suffering of Christ, some theologians
in particular hope, the sooner it might be comforting. But does one really
become aware of, how Jesus of Nazareth fared in the most appalling and innocent
torture? Or do you merely project your own suffering, however this is caused,
into this event? According to a certain piety, the fate of Jesus serves
primarily as a kind of mirror for one’s own suffering. Or you are looking for a
connection to God in this way, even though you actually have the feeling that
God has abandoned you. It may also be said that God himself was tortured,
tormented or murdered in Jesus. This is to deepen a certain way of believing
that God or Jesus understand you from their own experience. But for many such
thoughts do not help at all, and they continue to writhe in their pain without
finding the reason for it. That is, why theologians then add that Jesus was
resurrected later, which is often only felt as consolation by those affected.
Because, again, it does not give them the opportunity to receive help or relief
here and now, and the despair remains.
Ultimately, the Church not only conceals the cosmic law of cause and effect from people, but also what exactly redemption consists of, namely in the transmission of the divine redeeming spark of Christ into all souls and animated people, as an additional power, help and support [for further information see This Is My Word, Chap. 6, p. 89 f.]. This is of course a matter of belief at the beginning, but it can be experienced, so that everyone can even prove it to themselves.
The Journalist: But what did Jesus mean with the words "My God, my God, have you forsaken me?"
The Theologian: The teaching of Jesus is
very simple and clear and understandable for every child. As far as the last
hours of His earthly life as a human being are concerned, however, a dimension
is touched that cannot easily be put into human words and where it is
particularly noticeable: The human intellect misses what is happening because,
as is well known, one can see clearly only with the heart. In this sense, first
of all, it can be said: It is a terrible thing that happened here. And secondly,
I would add: These words of Jesus on the cross are a symbol for the situation
of the people who have forsaken God and who suffer from this abandonment of
God and from terrible misery of all kinds, if one only thinks of famine and
In the Christ-revelation transmitted through the prophetic word This is My Word, which I mentioned earlier, Christ himself explains: Thus, My call on the cross was the call of many generations that believed and believe they are lost. For My suffering and dying were and are a symbol for the suffering and dying of people. My words “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” are the words of the people of all nations and generations which, in their unbelief, accused and accuse God for their sins. I did not speak these words for Myself, but as a symbol for many. (This ist My Word, p. 882)
The Journalist: But the misery of people and peoples also exist without the crucifixion of Jesus. Couldn't this at least have been prevented? Or in other words: Was this symbol, which is spoken of in this publication, then necessary?
As I already said: The
crucifixion was not necessary. Certain people could have prevented it because of
their possibilities, which especially includes their own disciples; and then of
course the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. But the priests' guild and those in
bondage wanted it that way, and so did Pilate, even if after the judgment he
symbolically washed his hands in “innocence”. This symbol is meaningless and
does not relieve him of his responsibility. He pronounced the judgment in order
not to make himself unpopular with the opponents of Jesus.
So God has left the Son of God to people who for their part have forsaken God, and He has not intervened in their free, cruel will, because He never does anything else like that either. In this sense, He did not spare Jesus this fate. And Jesus also became a symbol for the many people, who continue to torture and crucify one another because of their distance from God.
The Journalist: Yet according to Christian faith, Christ came to Earth to show people the way to God and to peace and happiness again?
Yes. And for this He had to outwardly choose the path of great distance
from God through His incarnation in a human or material body on Earth. Because
the Earth could also be described as the point of the cosmos furthest from God
with the most massive degeneration of the human species that dominates this
planet. And in His earthly body itself, there was a further increase in
negativity for Jesus, the Christ, because the people who fought Him wanted it:
He had to endure terrible suffering, especially during the execution on the
cross and the previous torture, which can also be seen externally as an increase
in distance from God, since God is happiness and glory.
Outwardly, Jesus suffered the most extreme point of distance from God, which people do to themselves and to others and which some people suffering from it in their desperation perhaps interpret as being “God forsaken” In fact, one is never forsaken by God, on the contrary. He is always there, and at most one has left him the other way round, so that His presence is no longer noticeable.
With the execution of Jesus with all the tortures and torments, the battle between light and the demons of darkness escalated. The powers of darkness have given everything, but really everything, to measure themselves against Jesus and bring Him down – be it through a revocation or through doubts or a complaint against God or some other conceivable scenario. Their goal was that the mighty redeeming power that pulsed in Jesus, would be damaged by His wrongdoing and thus neutralized in its effect. As already said: I have not made this up; it is part of the Christ revelations through the word of the prophet in our time, and it is the answer to many questions.
This whole gruesome situation shows: This suffering has all been made by people who for their part have forsaken God and who rage against their neighbor – here in the most bestial and devious way against a wonderful person who did nothing to them, but also brought them liberation. Applied to our time one could also say: Instead of understanding their own condition, which is shown to them by the murder victim Jesus on the cross, people continue to blame God for their suffering, or they seek an answer in the alleged behavior of God instead of themselves.
But the tragedy on Golgotha makes it unmistakably clear: It was not God who brought Jesus to the cross, but the people. So people's behavior is the answer to the question why. It is people who drive their neighbor into the terrible outer distance from God, into suffering and cruel death, although God is glory and happiness. And behind these people there were the strongest forces of darkness that Jesus wanted to defeat. How is it today? Are these powers not hiding today behind those who glorify the terrible events of that time as an alleged “sacrifice necessary for salvation”?
The Journalist: This means: The real suffering of Jesus of Nazareth is a symbol for the suffering of people who live under the spell of the dark forces. The well-known word of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate in view of the torture of Jesus fits in with this: “Ecce Homo” in English, “Behold, the man”. (John 19:5)
The Theologian: Thus one can see that. “Behold, the man!” So human beings and all creatures worldwide must suffer from their brothers and sisters who have become satanic monsters; and among cowards, like Pilate, for not preventing the crucifixion although he was able to. For some, the torture of their opponent is not even enough, and they even demand an increase in torture through death by torture and an allegedly eternal hell for the victim like so many allegedly “saints” of the Roman Catholic Church. That is the previous low point of the degeneration with its cruel inventions.
“Ecce homo”, “Behold, the man”, were the words of Pilate – so, in my opinion, also symbolic words for all of humanity. As I said, Pilate could have written a completely different story if he had listened to his conscience and to his wife who had warned him urgently against a death sentence against Jesus of Nazareth, as is also passed down in the Bibles, and if he hadn't been so cowardly as to give in to pressure from the prosecutors for fear of his reputation. He could have prevented this crucifixion and therefore could not “wash his hands in innocence”, as he has tried according to tradition. With his death sentence against the Christ of God he too placed himself under the banner of darkness. And so words of the prophet Isaiah were fulfilled in this way: “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” (53:4)
At the sight of the crucified Jesus every person with a not yet completely cold heart can see what was done to this person and what other people do to each other and to other living beings. And out of this shock they could, if they wanted, give their lives a new direction.
So can the tormented
Jesus still help you to feel better yourself soon?
The Theologian: If you begin to learn to empathize and your heart opens up more to your neighbor in this way, then yes. But that is exactly where we are wrong. If someone keeps looking at the crucifix, thinking about the suffering of Jesus and thereby deepening his personal feelings of suffering this can even lead to the fact that his own suffering worsens, combined with self-pity that continues to revolve around himself. Most people become far too busy with themselves, which adds to the suffering.
I once saw a figure of a crucified Jesus hanging in an apartment. The resident rubbed his own blood onto this so-called “crucifix” made of wood, so that his blood, which had meanwhile dried up, but was still visible, became the blood of the Jesus figure. Often when he felt bad, he would look at this figure and seek solace in prayer. With such behavior, however, you expose yourself to the risk that your own suffering will become so entrenched in self-pity that you can get away from it only with the greatest effort.
Today the crucifix with the
dying or dead Jesus appears to me, among other things, as a symbol for
perseverance in suffering and misery, although there is a way out. In its
essence, it is above all the supposed trophy of the dark forces that flaunt the
murder of their worst enemy. Even the man I'm talking about says today that in
the end he found no help in this way. Some people are even reported to have bled
after a period of time, where the nails pierced the body of Jesus of Nazareth.
Possibly, if it is not a fraud, this is a much more extensive form of this
dangerous identification, but it does not help anyone.
Because Jesus has long since stopped hanging on the cross as a dying man. He is alive and He wants us to live with Him and be happy. One could also say: He would like to be resurrected in us and for that, He gives us the strength, and this strength is in us. A symbol for this can be, for instance, a burning candle or a cross without a corpus.
The Journalist: Cross without corpus or crucifix with corpus – is that really that big a difference?
The Theologian: Yes. Because the cross with the dying or dead body, the crucifix, is a sign of death that unconsciously symbolizes an alleged defeat of the man from Nazareth. Just as the demons or powers of darkness would have liked. And it's a state that should be ended as soon as humanly possible. In the Church, however, it is solidified and even celebrated again and again. In contrast, a “shining” cross without a corpus is a “symbol of life”, a kind of resurrection cross. Its meaning is then: Even this cruel method of execution could not bring down Jesus, the Christ, and what He stood for. Only the earthly body could be killed. But the Spirit in Jesus, the Christ, was stronger and did not allow itself to be bowed even in this situation that was ultimately emotionally incomprehensible for us. And He gives us this strength too.
And, to come back to the example mentioned at the beginning on the occasion of a funeral: The good news of the Christian faith has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus fared worse than you. Nor is it because one day I will rise to heaven if I just believe that Jesus was resurrected there. The question is: Am I really in “heaven” then? The hope that one day all suffering could be wiped away without our intervention is very dangerous, because it is not possible that way.
The Journalist: Why not?
Because no one can invalidate what is also testified in the Bibles of the
churches: “What a person sows he will reap.” Anyone who teaches otherwise
deceives people and lulls them into a false sense of security. Also: If I
believe that the suffering is over after death at the latest, then I may not
even bother to find the cause of the current suffering experiences in myself and
to use the days given to me to work on myself, possibly asking for repentance so
that I can more easily ask others for forgiveness.
Furthermore: For someone who believes that just by believing one can suddenly be free of suffering after death, the terrible suffering of other people on this Earth is no longer that bad. And he will also make less effort to help get rid of it in the world. He will endeavor to bring the sufferer what he believes to be the right faith. And for this purpose he may also try to help him outwardly. The help is then not selfless, but often part of a mission strategy and thus a very dubious “help”, which often causes many upsets and irritations among the addressees of these missionary attempts. The false ecclesiastical consolations also worsen the suffering if the causes that have not yet been recognized and have not yet been dealt with continue to have an effect. This also applies after death.
So one could say: Why all those words about crucifixes and crosses if I can’t find out why I’m suffering? Or why other people are tormented? Or animals? And why so many words if it doesn't improve the situation? There is no redemption from the suffering of the soul through death. Death takes nothing from us and it gives us nothing. There is no such thing as “rest in peace”; this cemetery and tombstone saying is totally wrong. It continues on the other side where it left off. And do I think it appropriate that everyone should become meek, including ourselves. Those who loudly proclaims different things can ultimately be answered only with modesty that the near future will then already bring the appropriate answers to the questions about which there are still very different ideas.
The Journalist: What is the “good news” then?
The Theologian: That we are beloved children of God and with the power of Christ in us can find our way out of suffering step by step, by recognizing ourselves – especially that which lies in the subconscious – by repenting, forgiving, asking for forgiveness, making amends as much as we can and stop repeating the old mistakes. This can be called “clearing up”. If I harm someone with words or deeds, I use words to ask forgiveness. If it happened in my thoughts or feelings, I ask forgiveness through Christ in my thoughts and feelings. Thoughts or mental images are tremendous powers, which some people are not even aware of, and they are also evident in the hereafter.
The Journalist: You say Christ helps. What about with Himself? Shouldn't one conclude that He, too, caused His suffering?
The Theologian: That would be a misunderstanding. Jesus was not fought and killed because He had previously set negative causes, but because He wanted to help us to find the way to God again, because He had a divine mission within Himself. This mission met with resistance from the priests and theologians of the time.
As a rule, however, the example of Jesus cannot be transferred to us. If you include the Isaiah prophecy here, then the following applies: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities” (53:5). And you can imagine that very practically: Judas had betrayed Him, the other disciples slept – also figuratively – and many did not dare to stand up for Him in the acute situation: neither the Roman procurator Pilate, who was convinced that Jesus was innocent, nor many from the people who feared the overwhelming power of priests and theologians and their followers and who therefore remained silent. Or where were those, who could have called: “Free Jesus”?
The Journalist: You can imagine it that way. But what about others, for example martyrs for a good cause? Could it be that others also suffer because they have a divine mission within them?
The Theologian: Jesus spoke of this in a specific context. For example, He said: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness” (Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:10). So you can already ask: Who of us is persecuted “for the sake of righteousness”? Who is following Jesus in this way? It is not my place to judge this. For most of them, the suffering has other causes, and the chance lies in finding and remedying them instead of taking refuge in a martyr’s role in your thoughts.
The Journalist: Isn't it very difficult for many people to believe that there are causes of their own?
The Theologian: This thinking did not occur to me either. I had to work it out again in every previous situation, because depending on the situation, it often hurts at first. But there was always help to take a step forward. Jesus taught: “First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:5)
The Journalist: If the causes come from previous lives, most people are not even aware of them.
The Theologian: But sometimes they suspect a lot. What kind of unresolved bad attitude was or could have been in the past is shown again in our thoughts and feelings today, now perhaps only in slightly different living conditions than before.
Through several, possibly many, incarnations, numerous possibilities have arisen, how the threads in the law of cause and effect can be interwoven. However, it is enough to know that nothing happens randomly and arbitrarily. I can therefore always start from my thoughts and feelings today and can make myself aware that God's help is there in every situation. Sometimes I also mentally ask for forgiveness for something I may have done to others in previous lives because I suffer it myself today. So if I hadn’t found any clue as to the causes of something negative that had happened to me, then I prayed, for example, in the same way: “Christ, you know the reasons. I ask forgiveness from you, where I once did such things to others, which I now experience myself.“
The Journalist: I would like to remind you once more of the “bereaved” in the example mentioned above. How would you answer the question “why” today?
The Theologian: The answers to the question of why always lie in the person concerned, in the respective sensations, feelings and thoughts. A relative and especially an outsider can easily be mistaken here and should therefore be very cautious and not delve into speculation. Each person can find different answers to a certain question, because their burden is different. So everyone can find their answers. However, one thing is certain: Nobody needs to accept a church doctrine about the “unfathomable mystery of God”. This belief can often remain undigested in the stomach for a lifetime, and it can break people.
The Journalist: What does this ecclesiastical deception in the law of sowing and reaping mean? Are then the Church teachers to blame, or is it the people themselves?
The Theologian: Anyone who does not use the chance of his life is responsible for what he could have grasped anyway, even if others have a parts in it. Sometimes you don't even want to see your own part. For example, anyone who agrees to church doctrine or is a church member or has their child baptized in the Church is also jointly responsible for the misleading of others. Besides, these teachings were developed by humans at some point, and who knows what role someone had in them in the past. And today the Church teaching systems are kept alive by certain people who believe in them and give a lot of money in the form of Church taxes, subsidies or donations. Everyone can ask themselves, why they want to hold on to these, and whether mind and feeling do not speak a different language.
In any case, the law of sowing and reaping does not recognize a scapegoat, but rather weighs up carefully and gives everyone involved their share – the teacher who passed on the teaching and the believer who followed it. That there are different proportions is also clear from the words of Jesus of Nazareth who said to the theologians and scribes of his time: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in” (Matthew 23:13). The fact that today’s theologians of the church hinder or even fight against the education of the law of sowing and reaping is a huge soul guilt.
The Journalist: If in the law of sowing and reaping everyone receives only his share, this law is just. Is that really it?
The Theologian: The most important question in this context is first of all another: Does the suffering of others affect me or does it leave me cold? Because how can I, as a Christian, help someone else to bear his or her burden if I have not developed a feeling for what is going on in my neighbor? And that's what matters, charity, or neighborly love. So did Jesus who taught Christ. “Anything you want people to do to you, you do it to them first.” So: If I want to be helped in need, then I start by helping others in their need as selflessly as possible. There is no point in speculating about the possible past life of people, who are currently suffering terribly, while at the same time this suffering does not affect me at all. Such behavior has nothing to do with Christ. Rather, the Christian path consists precisely in becoming a guide for other people to God’s love. And for this it is first of all necessary to learn to empathize.
Pastors and priests here sometimes
say, “I pray for you”. Yes, but what kind of prayer is that supposed to be when
the inner compassion is missing or completely underdeveloped? Unfortunately,
almost all people have lost their sense of the unity of all life due to the
dogmatic and anti-creation church teachings, so that one must first learn the
little ABC again, which includes: The other is part of me. And I am part of him.
And that also applies to animals and all of nature. Only under these conditions the knowledge of the law of sowing and reaping
is not intellectual knowledge,
but rather it contains a right word at the right time.
About the justice that you mentioned in your question, I could think about my own life, for example, through the question: Would it be fair, if I can comfortably indulge in idleness or if my ego gets its selfish goals fulfilled and if I then finally go to heaven “solely through faith”, as the Evangelical-Protestant Church teaches?
When it comes to justice, most people also lack a certain foresight. Often their thoughts revolve around a small part of their current earthly life. It would be very helpful here to learn to think in larger contexts.
This also includes the knowledge that life never ends. In a scientific context it is often said: And no energy is lost in the process. Practically speaking: The last breath of the human being in this world is immediately followed by the first breath of the soul in the hereafter. So life goes on here too. When death occurs, the soul leaves the body and continues to live invisibly for us humans in the other worlds. So it takes its breath with it. For example, the soul of a murdered person lives on and, in addition to the always helpful self-recognition, one of its main tasks could be to forgive the perpetrator.
Which way then it goes in the hereafter, for example, whether it wants or chooses a new body for another incarnation and with what intention, is up to it under certain circumstances. Here the magnetism “like to like” works and whether there is still a possibility of reincarnation at all. But in the hereafter, the soul also has several options to make a decision. It also depends on when you become aware of your own guilt and how you clear it up, to put it simply.
The Journalist: Would these all also be possible words at the grave?
The Theologian: I would never want to convince anyone of my belief. It is a matter of empathy to understand the neighbor in his current situation and also to find the words that might help him. So say not too little, but not too much either. It is important for me that life in the hereafter continues without interruption and that the thoughts and prayers of those who mourn also reach the soul in the hereafter.
Basically, I learned more and more to say only what I have actually achieved in my life only, or I learned to say where that is not yet the case.
A pastor, however, is professionally obliged to have to speak in certain situations, regardless of whether his words are then filled from within. However, sensitive people notice this when they hear only empty phrases. Moreover, Jesus of Nazareth did not want the profession of pastor or priest at all. So it is not a Christian office, but rather it comes from ancient idol worship.
The Journalist: In the churches, however, it is understood as a kind of special Christian vocation.
The Theologian: I too had started studying
theology because I wanted to stand up for Christ. On the part of the churches,
the pastoral profession is even thought of as a lifelong “calling”. But after a
certain time I could no longer reconcile this profession with following Jesus.
Nowhere did Jesus of Nazareth say that he would like a church with theologians
who work as pastors and priests. On the contrary, the theologians of that time,
the so-called “scribes”, were the most bitter opponents of Jesus of Nazareth. In
contrast, Jesus earned His living as a carpenter.
And also Paul, highly-esteemed by the Churches, did not get paid like today’s theologians for a “religious office”, but he worked as tent and as carpet maker (see Acts 18:1-3; 20:34; 1. Letter to the Corinthians 4:12; 1. Letter to the Thessalonians 2:9). So here the churchmen could at least take an example from Paul if they aren't doing what Jesus taught. But when it becomes inconvenient for the churchmen, they don’t care about Paul either. Then they are neither Christian nor Pauline.
Judging by the simple message of
Jesus of Nazareth, no “theology” is necessary at all. Temporarily I see the task
of the “theologian” in unraveling the confusion caused by theology with regard
to the Christian message. Because if the words of the theologians do not
correspond to the truth, that is, if people are taught wrongly, then they always
burden themselves with new burdens, which one day they will have to bear
unspeakably hard. Because they bear the greatest complicity in the negative
effects in the lives of their fellow human beings due to their false doctrine,
and they therefore have to bear the subsequent effects themselves – especially
if they had the opportunity to learn the knowledge from the Kingdom of God or
the spiritual world, but consciously continued to cultivate their ecclesiastical
Baals system of idols.
None of this is complicated at all. For example, if a bishop blesses soldiers at war and leads them to believe that they are doing God's will as soldiers, then the bishop is largely, if not most, to blame for the deaths of those who were then killed by those blessed soldiers and the suffering of the victims’ families. This suffering, and this of course applies to every person, must then, if it is not regretted, forgiven and made good in time, must be suffered and “expiated” by the church dignitary himself, often over times of times of times.
The Journalist: What do you mean by “be expiated”?
The Theologian: Many causes do not take
effect immediately or after a short period of time; it often takes a long time.
There is a well-known saying, “God’s mills grind slowly”. At some point a guilt
in this world or in the hereafter becomes fully effective if it is not cleared
up or made good again in time on Earth. That is then the “expiation”. The person
then suffers or “bears” himself the hardship or suffering that he previously
inflicted on others, for example, by leading them astray. And if a person
appears as a head of the Church to which his Church even ascribes
“infallibility” in doctrinal questions, then one day the expiation is immense
and cannot be put into words at all. And the “poor soul” who was once elected to
an “infallible” teaching post on Earth is ultimately one of the most unfortunate
creatures in the world beyond, even if it can still play its old role there for
a long time and gather servants around it.
So if you “expiate”, you can ask for forgiveness in this situation, but before that the chance was wasted to anticipate the effect and possibly not have to suffer it. And is it so easy to find repentance when one is tormented by severe pain and perhaps feels like a “victim” of fate? Experience shows that it is then difficult and often no longer possible, so that the expiation is fully effective and one is not spared.
In the hereafter it is also not as easy as it is on Earth to meet another soul with which something has to be cleared up. On Earth, I can basically reach out to everyone else, faster than in previous centuries using technical aids such as airplanes, telephones or the Internet. As a soul in the hereafter, I am usually among “my equals”. that is, among those who have a similar level of consciousness and similar burdens. The development or evolution is much more prolonged because one affirms one another in the mutual burdens instead of working through them.
The Journalist: I didn’t hear about that in religion class. In their dogmas and confessional writings, the churches teach the “resurrection of the dead on the last day” and a distinction between those who go to heaven and those who go to hell. What are your thoughts about that?
Would it be fair, if one
expects 100% “white” while the other expects 100% “black” and that into all
eternity? And what kind of god would that be, who for eternity cannot or will
not react to cries of pain and cries for help from his hellishly tormented
That reminds me of how, for example, church leaders kept silent about the events in the concentration camps in National Socialist Germany or how they are mostly silent today about the everyday life of animals in the slaughterhouses or animal testing laboratories. Or how church leaders are raking in the millions for their institutions today while it is accepted that tens of thousands of people die of hunger and malnutrition every day. All of that has nothing at all to do with God.
And if there were a place of eternal distance from God without the possibility of turning back, as the institutions of the Church claim, then the power that is distant from God would be stronger than God’s love.
On this subject the churches reveal
themselves very clearly: Because what is to be believed there is in it final
state a creation that is forever divided: with people or souls who were devout
Catholics or Protestants on Earth and some others who are supposedly allowed to
live with them in so-called bliss. And on the other hand, there are allegedly
the many others who are supposed to be in a place of never-ending distance from
God and of torment for all eternity, even if modern theologians fool around
philosophically about the believed suffering of those who think differently,
which only a few are aware of: According to church teachings, most Catholics and
Protestants also have to go to eternal hell later if they deviate from the
overall package of church doctrines. Because the whole must always be believed.
Even one deviation, one single dogma that is not believed, leads, for example,
to the Catholic cursing of the person allegedly for all eternity.
The Creator God, whom Jesus of Nazareth gave us an understanding of, did not come up with something like that. He is a different God from the God of the Church. The Creator-God extends His hand to each of His children at any point in time, in this world and in the hereafter, and everyone can sooner or later find his way out of his self-created hell. It’s up to him alone. In the meantime, there may be a so-called “hell” for some, and this can also span long periods of time. But only so that he may recognize and repent of how he previously made other people's lives “hell” in the same way, and so that he may repent.
As a side note: The Greek word “aionios” mentioned in a few places in the Bible in connection with “damnation” or “bliss” denotes a long time, an “eon”, but not an eternity in the sense of an infinity. And the other word used for this in the Bible “asbestos” can also be translated as “immeasurable”. So suffering can last a very long time, but it will end at some point. And when, each one is ultimately responsible for that.
The Journalist: Some people already understand their fate on Earth as a kind of “hell”. And others report on sorrow and joy in their alternating lives, without, however, major blows of fate occurring.
The Theologian: You say “without major blows of fate occurring”. But what is still to come? A seed slowly ripens for harvest. And before harvesting, you can watch the seeds grow. In relation to humans this means: Before a fate occurs, people are warned several times in order to prevent possible effects of a seed by clearing them up in good time. Incidentally, this is also found in the Bible, even if it is wrongly claimed in the book Wisdom of Solomon that some “bad” people “would never change” (12:10). In the book of Wisdom it also says, for example: “punished by the very things by which he sins” (Wisdom 11:16). This corresponds to humankind’s early knowledge of sowing and reaping. But it doesn’t have to come to that. In the book of Wisdom it goes on to say: “Therefore thou dost correct little by little those who trespass, and dost remind and warn them of the things wherein the sin that they be freed from wickedness and put their trust in thee, O Lord” (Wisdom 12:2). And: “But judging them little by little, thou gavest them a chance to repent ...” (v. 10) [The book Wisdom is part of the Roman Catholic Bibles, among Protestants it is one of the so-called Apocrypha]
Here God is wrongly named as the creator of the harvest or as the judge. Apart from this serious mistake, it is at least clear that no fate falls from the sky, but that there are always warnings beforehand.
Even the smallest incidents can help us in this context and point us to our negative causes if we are vigilant during the day. If we recognize ourselves in everyday situations, if we understand the warnings and draw the right conclusions from them, then we do not have to suffer a certain fate or can at least avert part of it.
The Journalist: For example, what are such warnings?
We can always be
vigilant when something annoys or upsets us, for example the behavior of one of
our fellow human beings. The annoyance comes from within ourselves. The message
is: Regardless of what the next person has – whether he has really behaved
negatively or whether I have just put something negative into his behavior: What
I get annoyed about “corresponds” to me, so we can also call it a
“correspondence”. So the key question is first: Where do I behave like the other
person whose behavior upset me, possibly “only” in my mind?
Because if I didn’t have the same or something similar, then I could stay more calm in the respective situation and do the right thing from my inner strength. But as it is, the situation upsets me and throws me off balance. That is a possible warning
From this example we can also understand what Jesus of Nazareth meant when he warned: “But why do you see the splinter in your brother’s eye and not perceive the beam in your eye” (Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:3). The behavior of our fellow human being is then the “splinter” that points us to our beam.
The Journalist: What if I recognize the beam but have no strength to remove it?
The Theologian: For the piece of beam, which I recognize today, I have been given the strength to remove it if I do it directly or still on the same day and I don’t postpone or pass on it completely. We can call this force the “daily energy”.
The Journalist: For example, I was annoyed with a certain person. How do I find my own beam now?
The Theologian: Then I ask about the reason for the trouble.
One example: Perhaps it is an
unfulfilled desire to be taken seriously or to receive attention from this
person. Then I can ask the other way round: Who did I not take seriously or pay
no attention to? And why? Can I think of a situation for that? How can I “clear
it up” and behave differently in the future?
Finally, I can further ask – based on the original situation: Why was it so important to me to be noticed in this situation? What is behind this? Maybe jealousy? Or the fear of losing that person’s attention or affection? And why this fear? In which points have I made myself dependent on a person who, like me, has his freedom?
This is how I gradually get to the root of my behavior. Can I then clear it up and give myself a new goal? For example: “In God I become free.” Or: “I give to my neighbor, I expect nothing from him.”
If the anger comes up again at a later point in time, then I can curb myself mentally: Stop! Halt! What did I resolve to do?” At this moment I am getting calmer already. I don’t react with reproaches, but try to understand my neighbor. Experience shows: The relationship is getting better and better.
Once I have cleared up my own weaknesses, the beam, then I can also help my neighbor to recognize his weaknesses, the splinters, and to clear them up, if he wants to, and it can lead to a much better coexistence.
The Journalist: In this example, anger triggered a lot and set it in motion. Does everything that I encounter every day or that moves me really have a deeper meaning?
What moves me, sure. What I encounter, probably more often than I realize. It
always depends on you. We do not need to interpret anything in situations, but
if we pay attention to our environment, then the flight of a bird can convey a
message or trigger something in us, because God speaks to us from many mouths,
because He is the life in all forms of life.
In addition, there are numerous thoughts that come to us again and again during the course of a day. However, if they just come to us and disappear again without our getting upset, then it doesn’t make sense to analyze them. That is my experience. Conversely, most people do not suffer from over-interpreting everyday encounters and cues, but rather they are dull and perceive only little of what is happening around them and what also wants to say something to them.
If, for example, some smaller warnings are overlooked, which point us to a fate that may be looming, then the warnings can become stronger and the first effects may already occur. I am thinking, for example, of a minor car accident in which someone got away with a “shock” or a minor sheet metal damage. The crucial question is the “why” of the accident. If you ignore it, there is a risk of a major accident.
The Journalist: Often it was just a lack of concentration?
The Theologian: Yes, but the lack of concentration also had its causes. Where were my thoughts? So what was I just thinking? Is it possible or even likely that it has something to do with the deeper cause of the accident? Or I know exactly what is currently wrong in my life and what the little accident would like to warn me about. It is not necessary to wander far into the distance.
The Journalist: So do thoughts play an essential role?
The Theologian: Yes. With someone who is afraid of failure, for example, failure can occur only because he has repeatedly allowed inner images of failure as the cause, without asking why and changing it with the help of Christ.
The Journalist: Is the importance of thought also taught in the churches?
The Theologian: No. Church teachings focus one’s consciousness strongly on the external or on superficial things, on “sacraments” and ceremonies, on hearing sermons, on “faith alone”, on one or the other “good work”. Especially in conservative circles of the Evangelical Church, among the so-called Pietists, Evangelicals or Charismatics, it is emphasized again and again that Christ died for all our sins and that we are saved only through faith. This teaching contributes significantly to the fact that people do not look more closely and attentively into their everyday life and then do not come closer to God step by step. Then they may not even be able to get to the bottom of problems, and God’s help in many everyday situations is not noticed at all. Some people have a blow of fate that shouldn't have happened to them at all. The men and women of the Church then bear a main responsibility, including the most massive soul guilt.
The Journalist: If someone is hit by a blow of fate, it is often said in the Church: “This is the unfathomable will of God.”
Thereby, God had tried
again and again to make Himself heard and to prevent the blow of fate. We need
only to take seriously the words about the “splinter and beam” from Jesus’
Sermon on the Mount and observe ourselves for once in the situations of the day.
Every day gives us a lot of help.
Those who, instead of living consciously in the day, prefer to think a lot of theological and intellectual thoughts can easily become entangled. Their consciousness is in danger of becoming dull and becoming more and more distant from the possible living experiences of God in everyday life.
An example also occurs to me: When I accidentally ran over a small cat in my car, I felt an animal suffering like seldom before. The cat moved a few brief moments before it died, and I stood desperately trying to help, but was helpless. Later I consoled myself that spiritual helpers probably helped the little animal to release its animal soul from its body as quickly as possible.
In some other situations, however, I had hardly or barely noticed the suffering of others. And doesn’t that have to do with the tangles of thoughts, mostly selfish thoughts, that people can spin themselves into?
The Journalist: Couldn’t the accident with the cat also include a warning?
The Theologian: For example, I could ask myself later: Who else will get “under my wheels”? Other animals? Humans? Perhaps one day it will hit you yourself if you don't recognize the warning and change something.
But not everything that the day brings has to do with negative things. The clues from everyday life help us, for example, also in a positive way, to find the best clue for our life. Everything speaks to us. Before decisions are made, there are, for example, certain events or conversations, the content of which makes it easier for me to make a decision. God’s help is constantly active for my well-being, and God can speak to me from everything. Sometimes we are far too little aware of that. However, the impulses come from God only if they also agree with His commandments.
The Journalist: Exactly. Some therefore ask for “God’s will”.
God always gives us the
freedom to decide. He does not decide for us and does not give us a “right”
decision in a specific situation. God wants us to live His commandments, and He
helps us find our motives so that we can make decisions that are also motivated
by the commandments.
I am thinking here of questions about whether someone marries a certain person or not, which occupation someone chooses, whether they prefer to move south or north, or whether they stay where they are. We decide for ourselves, but God helps us. Often there are also impulses that we can suddenly perceive within ourselves, a thought that fits the situation or a feeling in which direction one could act. I experience this sometimes when I try to become still and when I want to “align” myself with God in me in these quiet moments. Whether the thought, the sensation really comes from the Spirit of God in me or from other influences or from my own shadow, is an open question at this point. In any case, it is first absorbed by my consciousness, and I can then weigh the good and the less good and draw the appropriate conclusions from it.
Any practice at all is important, to listen inwardly and not just roughly steer your own rudder of life with your intellect. With this I show my willingness to receive from within and – if I want to – to be able to live better and better according to God’s will. God does not want us to take detours on the way to Him, but He also remains with and in us on our detours.
The Journalist: If I have understood correctly, it is about inner guidance in certain situations, whereby external occasions can help us to perceive them.
Another question about the example with the cat: What about the animals? Does “sowing and reaping” also apply to them?
The Theologian: When animals suffer, what concerns the animals themselves is not about “sowing and reaping”. In contrast to humans, animals did not sow negatively, but many were shaped by negative human behavior, for example, aggression, as they are today. This has developed over unimaginably long periods of time, that is, over eons, especially with so-called “predators.” That these developments in the animal kingdom are not original, however, is also clear from the great vision of the Kingdom of Peace of the prophet Isaiah , in which it says, among other things: – “the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, Cows and bears will graze together ... and lions will eat straw like cattle” (11:6-7). This is how it used to be and how it will be again when people first completely change their behavior toward one another and toward the animals. Then even aggressive animals will gradually change their behavior.
Until then, however, the cruel suffering of animals in animal experiments, in factory farming, in slaughterhouses, in animal transports, in contaminated environments, in hunting and also in accidents can be traced back directly or indirectly to human causes. And so the current terrible suffering of animals could also be a harbinger of what will one day come to humans, when these unpunished and increasingly ominous causes fall back as effects on the perpetrators, the human beings. Are we even aware of what we are doing to animals?
The Journalist: Does what falls back on people also include the diseases that are caused by eating meat?
The Theologian: The law of sowing and reaping also applies to our eating habits, so that from the point of view of the animals one could say: “You humans made us sick, now you eat our diseases.” For people who feed on other people's bodies there is the word “cannibals”. People who eat animals shouldn’t complain if they are called “animal cannibals”. And this animal cannibalism with its indescribable daily atrocities in animal husbandry and in the slaughterhouses is also largely responsible for what is downplayed as climate change, but which consequently creates a greenhouse on Earth. Much of this can be proven and the underlying aggression against life and the lethargy against suffering is the deeper root cause. This is how it is stated in our time by the prophetic word of God.
In the order of creation, as it is
handed down in the Bibles, the consumption of animals was in any case not
intended. According to the creation account that can be read there, human beings
are vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30). In the Bible this changes only after the
“Flood”. Allegedly this change also came from God. But when in this context
“fear and dread” of you shall be “upon every beast of the earth” is
suddenly spoken by a human being (Genesis 9:1 ff.), then this is not a
“permission of God”, but a “woe” over the people. The well-known Old Testament
theologian Walter Zimmerli called it the “curse of the primordial time”.
And the associated yes to meat consumption is then not a “divine will”, but a “divine woe”. More and more people are giving up meat because they know that all the suffering we do to animals falls back on people, depending on their share; and because they are becoming more and more sensitive to the suffering of animals [cf. in addition: see book The Hidden Love of Jesus for the Animals – Gabriele Publishing Houses].
The Journalist: In the Bible it says about God in connection with this passage: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning … the life of man ...” (Genesis 9:5)
The Theologian: The word of reckoning or avenging makes it clear that some human words and thoughts have been ascribed to God in the Bible. God is not an avenger and does not ask for blood. It is the law of cause and effect that the harvest “demands”, if the seed or the bad in it is not removed again before it sprouts, that is, if a correction is not made in time. No drop of blood shed by human beings and no human thought of revenge escapes this law of sowing and reaping.
The Journalist: Let us assume that the “law of sowing and reaping” applies. But neither this principle and its effects are made known to people, nor how to deal with it. Then a lot stays the same. It is then perhaps a painful cycle of the same or similar problems over and over again ...
The Theologian: ... which at some point can consolidate into a difficult fate here on Earth or in the hereafter.
It is above all the institutions of the Church that dilute or deny these spiritual principles according to which events on Earth and in the cosmos take place. They are then replaced by the alleged “unfathomable will of God”, the alleged “mysteries of God” or enduring, praying or lamenting in suffering – without being able to find a reason for it. Then it is also more difficult to take control of your life and to be able to turn negative into positive.
The Journalist: In Church doctrine there is often talk of a wrathful, punishing and judging God, which Jesus would have had to reconcile.
The Theologian: That is what they believe there. But God has never punished and does not punish, and He was and is never angry in the human sense that He would get upset like a human being. And neither is He a judge who pronounces a verdict, comparable to a human lawyer. Each person evokes their own judgment through their actions, words, thoughts, feelings and sensations. The entire doctrine of the Church is an expression of a distance from God that can hardly be surpassed. But there is divine seriousness.
The Journalist: If that is the case, then consequently can it not be true that the wrath of God had to be atoned for?
The Theologian: The doctrine of the “sacrificial lamb” Christ, with whom the wrath of God was allegedly atoned for, is only a human conception that comes from pagan mystery cults, ultimately from the Baal cult, from where it was also adopted in the sacrificial cult of the Jewish priests. Jesus wanted to build the Kingdom of Peace on this Earth with the people. He only became an “atonement” or “sacrificial lamb” when people abandoned Him. From God the redemption was not planned as a bloody event, because in His world no blood flows at all. God does not punish anyone either. He cannot punish because He has no punishment at all. Even the wrath of God, as taught in the churches, does not exist and never has been. These are all intellectual up to sadistic ideas from the heads of people separated from God.
There is only the serious struggle
of God for people, which is expressed through prophetic words in clear, powerful
and sometimes sharp-sounding words, when gentler words did not move anything
beforehand. Good examples of this can be found in the many words of the prophets
in the “Old Testament”, but also in the woes of Jesus about the scribes and
Pharisees, the theologians and religious leaders of the time (Matthew, chap. 23).
Instead of discovering God’s love, waking up and turning back in the unadorned Jesus words about the theologians of His time, many people preferred to interpret an alleged “wrath of God” into the words. They believed in “God's punishments” instead of recognizing human self-punishment in the “law of sowing and reaping” in negative events.
This law always also includes the righteousness that underlies all events over the course of incarnations, even eons. But next to that there is always the love and mercy of God, which helps us in every moment to find our way out of the negative. This may not happen overnight, but requires more or less many steps, so that we can speak of an evolution back to God, just as there was once a development away from God, one sometimes speaks of the so-called “Fall-event”.
The Journalist: You keep using the terms “spiritual principles” or “law”. I know the word “Gospel” from church teachings? It is understood there as “good news”. If that doesn’t take you too far, maybe a short answer: What exactly is “Gospel” and what is “Law”?
The word “law” has
gotten a completely unjustified negative connotation, especially because of the
Lutheran teaching. There, following Paul – to put it simply – a distinction is
made between what one should do, what one calls the “law”; and what the
Christian message supposedly gives one, which is called the “Gospel”. And
supposedly it would be sufficient for the salvation of the soul to believe in
this so-called “salvation” supposedly given by God, as the Church defines it as
the “Gospel”. But this distinction is just an intellectual brainchild taught in
the Protestant faculties of the universities, which is not true and which only
makes people more diffuse. Because nobody can ignore one’s own actions as simply
as secondary, as the Protestant theologians claim, who also devalue the word
“law” with it.
The cosmic laws are all-embracing and just from the beginning of creation. The word “law” is therefore a word with positive content. The cosmic laws – one could also say “the absolute law” – contain that all human activity, feeling and thinking is also stored in a gigantic cosmic “bookkeeping”, which works according to the law of sowing and reaping or according to the principle of sending and receiving or also like draws back to like. However, these laws also contain the mercy of God, who repeatedly gives the person or the soul opportunities and offers so that they can update their life situation every second in a positive sense. That is, if you want to call it that, the “good” news, which also includes that no one has to persist or even end in pain and despair.
The word “lawful” means to behave according to the cosmic laws in a positive sense: that is, to do something in the sense of God’s good commandments, which in turn brings about something positive.
And what comes from God is always exclusively good and serves the maturation of the human soul. As a specialist in theology and seeker of God, I usually no longer speak of “Gospel”. Because this word was completely corrupted by the institutions of the Church and charged with the contents of untrue, lying Church doctrine.
The Journalist: How can you imagine that? For example, how did this “law of sowing and reaping” come about? Did God Create It?
The Theologian: No, God didn’t make it. It came through people who, as free spirit beings in “heaven”, no longer wanted to live according to the orders of God or the cosmos. They no longer wanted to be children of God, who, among other things, populate the cosmos with the attributes of Kindness, Love and Mercy, but wanted to rule and create their own world with corresponding laws.
The Journalist: There is something in the Bible about the Fall?
One could also speak of a “Fall-event”, since many individual
offenses were based on a long-term abnormal attitude. So it was not just a few
minutes in which a serpent encouraged the original woman Eve to pick a fruit not
intended for her and in which Adam, the original man, bit into the fruit. This
narrative contains truth, but is to be understood symbolically. It describes the
breakout from the order of God and an attempt to place a second creation next to
the one already created according to its own rules. In the biblical story of the
“Fall” of Adam and Eve, which also contains many pictures and symbols in detail,
this appears as the temptation to want to “be like God”. (Genesis 3:5)
And the temptation consisted in no longer filling one’s place in a perfect structure in complete joy in equality, freedom and unity with the whole of creation, but wanting to distinguish oneself from other creatures, to want to be creators of their own worlds, to live for the honor of their own ego and to compete with others for this purpose. With this, the “Fall-beings” have broken out of the original unity of creation, because all forms of life are respirated by God’s breath.
The eating of certain fruits contrary to the divine commandment, as it is told in the Bibles, can in this sense be seen as a symbol of how someone steps out of this unity with God and with his environment in order to create another form of order which, as is well known, then resulted in disorder and chaos. And the possibility of such an action is always based on the “freedom” of the creatures, which is also seen in this way in ecclesiastical doctrine. This freedom would have been used very long times ago by a part of the spirit beings “in heaven” to massively change the divine order and to build up a counter-order more and more. This breakaway on the motive of pride was consequently a first negative cause that produced a corresponding negative effect. And in the course of this “Fall”, more and more negative causes and corresponding effects were added. That is why the “law of sowing and reaping” can also be called the “law of cause and effect” or the “causal law” or, in its negative aspects, the “law of the Fall”. And the state of this development away from the great cosmic order becomes clear in the state of this world and in where it is leading to climate collapse.
The Journalist: In your answers you are referring to messages from Christ, which, according to your words, He Himself gave in our time through the prophetic word. Did these messages address all major issues affecting humankind or did essential questions remain unanswered?
The messages fulfilled the
promise Jesus made in the words of the Gospel of John: “I have yet many things
to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of
truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth.” (John 16:12-13)
Everything essential is open today. And the message of Christ, repeated today also the prophetic word and updated many times over, provoked just as much opposition as did the message of Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago. And that’s how it has been in all the years since then.
The Journalist: What do you mean by the “contradiction”?
The Theologian: If I go back to the Our Father and ask “Your kingdom come”, then you can see it like this: Heaven should come to Earth. However, there are forces who want to prevent this and those who want to preserve the world as it has come into being as a result of the “Fall”. With the domination of people over other people, with the above and below, with the exploitation of creation for selfish purposes and a lot more. In short: With all the negativity that many exploit for their personal purposes and for the well-being of their ego. These forces regard the planet Earth as their base, which they have set up for their own good over the course of the eons-long Fall-event and which they try to defend tooth and nail and where they will literally stop at nothing. And in this system the ecclesiastical institutions also have their dominant function.
The churches believe that Jesus, the Christ, will come to Earth again. But what about them then? The church authorities would certainly not follow Him, because then their power would be gone and they would no longer be church leaders. So it is not difficult to introduce yourself or to make it clear: They would therefore cling to the cult of the pope and the whole structure of dogma that they have devised over many centuries and to all the external display and would continue to try to intimidate their believers. And that Jesus would submit to the churchmen is completely out of the question – the contrast could hardly be more blatant.
The Journalist: You mention the structure of dogma. In the Catholic dogmas and also in the Evangelical-Protestant confessional writings, as already discussed, there is also talk of damnation, hell or eternal distance from God. According to the Church, creation would always remain divided, thus, the attempt to perpetuate the thought of the Fall, if I understand it correctly.
The Theologian: Exactly. And by these threats with eternal distance from God, countless people were intimidated, scared and made dependent on the apparent rescue offers by the Church. But these offers are in reality part of the great distance from God, so that church-dependent people revolve as if in a dark circle.
The Journalist: Which are the rescue offers of the churches?
The Theologian: Put simply, the supposedly “right” faith and participation in ecclesiastical acts supposedly instituted by God, so-called sacraments, in which God supposedly should work. It is about the forgiveness of sins, for example. According to ecclesiastical belief, people are absolved of their sins by pastors or priests. That is however not at all possible. Jesus also did not want His followers to become theologians, priests or pastors at all.
The Journalist:What happens during these church acts?
The Theologian: In the Catholic Church there
is the phrase “This same God forgives sinners through me”, meaning the priest.
The word “sinner” is obviously correct and sounds humble, but the claim attached
here is a mockery. What is true about it is only the “sinner”, and it is well
known that priests and pastors are often the worst sinners when, for example,
one thinks of countless crimes of child molest in recent times. And as with all
sinners, the pastor can forgive only those people who are guilty of sinning
against him, the sinner in a robe, who have thus wronged the pastor as a person.
So it is with all people, and priests are no exception. All are called by Jesus,
the Christ, to forgive one another and to behave differently in the future.
But what is behind the phrase “This same God forgive sinners through me”? It is the claim to be a kind of “mediator” between God and human being through a human office, but there is no such thing, because God works directly in all forms of life.
And what picture emerges if you include the so-called indulgence, as happens in Catholicism? The indulgence is considered to be the alleged “remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven …” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Munich 1993, No. 1471). Behind these words hides the ecclesiastical theory that a debt can already be repaid by the “sacrament of penance” carried out by the Church. From my point of view, this is an idea born out of clerical arrogance, which leads people astray, because in reality nothing has been erased.
The next question from the Church’s
point of view would then be how to deal with possible “after-effects” of this
guilt. Here, too, the church grants itself power of disposition by pretending to
be able to dispense from the “treasure of the satisfactions of Christ and the
saints” on the decree or partial decree for “temporal penalties”
authoritatively. This then happens “under precisely defined conditions” and is
even possible for the deceased in the hereafter, whose path to purification
should be shortened as a result.
Perhaps at this point a brief interjection of thought to pause: It may be very difficult for an outsider to even grasp what the Church is saying about itself. But Catholics are “raised” with these claims from childhood.
But there is more: The church's action in the “sacrament of penance” is given additional weight by the fact that it “still remains the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession”. (Ordo poenitentiae 31, Catechism, No. 1484)
But all of this is not just heavy food for the brain, it is simply nonsense. And on this subject, too, the official churches mention “God” and “Church” in the same breath, which is another serious abuse of the name of God, because none of this has anything to do with God. And what the Church practices here also serves to obscure the cosmic law, which reads: “What a person sows he will reap.”
The Journalist: The emergence of the Protestant Church began in the 16th Century with the fight against the indulgences of the Catholic Church. What has become of this dispute about “penance”?
The Theologian: In the Protestant Church
there is an increasing tendency to tolerate indulgences, which was seen, for
example, in the Protestant reactions to the Jubilee Indulgence in 2000. There
were almost no protests. And even in the Protestant Church, the pastors’ alleged
spiritual power in this area was retained.
Several times a year, for example, as a Protestant pastor, I took part in a so-called “joint confession”. The following happened:
First, as a pastor, I prayed aloud some preparatory words of prayer, which led to the question for those present: “Before the holy God I ask each of you: Do you confess that you are guilty and do you regret your guilt? Do you want the forgiveness of your guilt in the name of Jesus Christ? If you also believe that the forgiveness I am giving you is God’s forgiveness, then answer: Yes.”
The participants answered aloud with “Yes”, whereupon I continued as pastor: “As you believe, so it be done to you. In the power of the order that the Lord has given His church, I absolve you, single and loose: your debts are forgiven. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” From my current point of view, this was and continues to be a tremendous and dangerous misleading of people.
The participants finally replied with “Amen” and the pastor said: “Go in peace!”
The Journalist:In the pastor’s words there is talk of an “order” given to the Church to act in this way. Who gave the Church such an order?
In the churches it is said, Jesus of Nazareth. But there is no
mandate or order from Jesus of Nazareth to any church to do so. What the
churches refer to is the so-called “power of keys” which, according to their
teaching, was supposedly bestowed on them by Jesus. Jesus’ words to Peter serve
as the basis for this: “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what
you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)
What Jesus said here specifically to Peter, however, is a general law that every person can apply to his or her life, including Peter, and which Jesus also told every other person. That is why the Gospel of Matthew says a few lines further, precisely in this general form: “Truly I tell you: What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (18:18)
So here there is no mention of
priests or a church, not even of Peter, but Jesus speaks of the law of sowing
and reaping, and the word “heaven” in this case means the hereafter. The words
of Jesus explain that life in this world continues in the hereafter: The people
who “bind” themselves to something on Earth, that is, who impose burdens on
themselves that make them unfree, will also be bound exactly to these burdens
and unfree as souls in the hereafter. But a person will be free from what is
loosed on Earth, that is, cleared up, the person will also be free from it as a
soul in the hereafter. That is the meaning of the words of Jesus. The law of
sowing and reaping is therefore not interrupted by the death of a person. Life
goes on and it may lead to one or many new incarnations.
The Journalist: That is different from the interpretation of this word in the churches. The Catholic Church has even derived the power of the papacy from the words to Peter.
The Theologian: Jesus certainly did not speak of a pope, not even of a “Holy Father” on Earth. On the contrary, the Bible says: “And you must not call anyone here on earth ‘Father,’ because you have only the one Father, who is heaven” (Matthew 23:9). And when Jesus once used the address “Holy Father” (John 17:11). He meant God, His Father “in heaven”. What a mockery of God when, despite these words of Jesus, the Church also calls its pope “Holy Father” and thus addresses him practically as God.
Jesus, the Christ, did not want a pope and He did not give anyone power over others, neither worldly nor spiritual. In the “worldly” area, people should agree on rules of coexistence among themselves. And in a spiritual sense, Christ has given every person the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”, that is: to recognize oneself with His help in the law of sowing and reaping, to repent, to ask for forgiveness, to forgive and no longer do the negative that has been recognized and cleared up with His power.
The Journalist: Then what is the function of the pope if Jesus did not want one?
A pope is a proclaimer of
dogmas and theological subtleties, who changed the simple words of Jesus,
falsified them and in many cases turned them into their opposite. And it is no
coincidence that the popes are mostly highly intellectual theologians. The
penultimate Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger, was a professor of theology.
And also his successor, Dr. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis, was theology
lecturer and even rector of the Catholic theological faculty in Buenos Aires.
And the pope continues to be the ruler of a powerful institution that ultimately leads people astray and intimidates with their nice, unctuous words and presentations. In this sense he is the leader of a dogma dictatorship. A pope allows himself to be venerated by the faithful as an alleged representative of Christ. But Christ is definitely not “represented” by him, because Christ is represented in all of us, namely in our inner being. The son of a carpenter does not need a pope embedded in a lot of fuss, and everyone can give himself an answer as to who else might use such an office and such an institution for his own purposes.
Measured against the law of sowing and reaping, the pope bears a particularly grave guilt for the Church’s misleading of humankind, as I pointed out earlier. I would like to repeat it again: And if a person appears as a head of the church to whom his church even ascribes “infallibility” in doctrinal questions, then one day the negative consequences due to the misguidance is immense and cannot be put into words at all. And the “poor soul” that was once elected to an “infallible” teaching position on Earth is ultimately one of the most unfortunate creatures in the world beyond, even if it can still play its old role there for a long time and gather servants around it.
Jesus was a man of the people and
not of the church. And whoever follows Him also remains a man or woman of the
people: He then makes no claims to be or perhaps to become something special,
and he does not stage any cultic trickery or media-appropriate ceremonies in
which faulty people are celebrated or even “canonized”. Also, a follower of
Jesus does not adorn his head with all kinds of special hats or caps and as a
man he does not wear “women’s robes” or the like as a sign to his followers.
According to church teaching, 265 popes should currently be in the Catholic “heaven” or be on their way there, which is probably a reason for many souls to avoid the place in question in the hereafter and bypass it as widely as possible. If one assumes a reincarnation or reembodiment, there will probably be significantly fewer former popes, because if a soul was once incarnated in a human body that was pope on Earth, then it may want to become that again soon, as long as it has not yet become aware of the extent of its guilt in the hereafter and has not yet repented. With the appropriate awareness, one would then also see in the hereafter which dark soul has made it to the papal throne most often so far.
The Journalist: Have you asked for forgiveness for acting as a pastor according to the church doctrine of confession and penance?
The Theologian: For example, I mentally asked for forgiveness from all people who took part in the “confessions” for which I was responsible. I do not know how many people at that time lulled themselves into the false sense of security that something had been forgiven that had not yet been.
The Journalist: Can you explain that in more detail?
I can give you an
example of this: Suppose someone feels guilty about their divorced spouse. Both
now go their separate ways, but much of the past has not been dealt with. It is
possible that reproaches to the other superimpose the full realization of one’s
own guilt. People now take part in Common Confession with mixed feelings.
He was not taught that a guilt can be forgiven, for example, only when the
person suffering from that guilt forgives the person concerned. The former
partner may still be a long way from that.
At church confession the pastor now says in the name of God to the confessor “free, single and loose”. Perhaps he believes this and sees the matter as resolved. He silences possible later remorse, and possibly deeper feelings about his share of guilt. He was forgiven by God. It is possible that the pastor even recommended in a one-on-one conversation that he should simply believe more firmly that he was now forgiven.
In the meantime, his former partner is getting more and more on the wrong track and has other negative causes. In his thoughts and feelings, he is now increasingly blaming his former partner, whose guilt has apparently been forgiven with the help of the pastor.
Can he now say: “I have nothing more to do with the life of my former partner today, because I was forgiven thanks to the ecclesiastical sacrament, the matter is fine with me?” In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus speaks of a similar situation and says: “Thus: If you offer your gift on the altar and there it occurs to you that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar and go first and be reconciled with your brother and then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23 f.)
This means: If you want to turn to God and you feel that the relationship with a person is not right on your part, then go to the person and put the relationship in order. These connections in forgiveness can also be found in the text of The Lord’s Prayer, as it is prayed in the churches: “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” So: Only when people have forgiven each other can the respective guilt be removed. God could forgive us immediately after genuine repentance, and He is ready to do so immediately. But it also depends on our neighbor. For God loves everyone equally, and God is also in our neighbor.
How about if someone is completely forgiven who, for example, deliberately harmed another and who afterwards simply prayed “God forgive me”? Is everything okay then for the perpetrator? Although the injured party cannot yet forgive in his distress and perhaps because of that became seriously guilty in the period that followed? For example, by doing something bad that he would not have done without the suffering that was done to him before? Would that be fair if, for example, the latter is not forgiven because of his lack of insight, but the original perpetrator is? The fine connections between sowing and reaping can never be easily resolved by a church “scrament” or a ceremony, a religious experience of a participant or even a letter of indulgence. It has to be put back in order step by step by everyone involved.
The Journalist: Can someone who honestly wants to be reconciled still do something so that the other is also ready for reconciliation?
The Theologian: Someone who wants to reconcile looks relentlessly at his own share of guilt and clears it up without expecting that the next one will do the same. God helps in many ways those who do this. And even those who are not yet ready for reconciliation repeatedly receive help in taking steps towards reconciliation; not only in this world, but also in the hereafter.
The Journalist: Reconciliation would also lead to greater inner freedom.
The Theologian: It is a huge opportunity to become freer from within and to be able to take new paths. On the contrary: How much guilt can pastors incur when they seem to forgive in the name of God, even though they have neither seriously repented nor really forgiven. Who can look into the next one? And what further guilt is charged to those who, through their self-chosen office, see themselves in a kind of “mediator position” between God and human beings, although they neither have real experience of God nor understand what is really going on with a human being. The ecclesiastical sacrament of confession is nothing but dangerous charlatanry. One must say it so clearly.
The Journalist: How do the Catholic and Protestant Churches explain their own actions?
According to Catholic and Protestant teaching, Christ and not a
pastor or priest is considered to be the “mediator” to God (Catechism of the
Catholic Church, No. 1546; Evangelical Confessions, Apology XXI). However:
Doesn’t a certain person behave exactly like a “mediator” when he passes off
certain acts as “acts of God” by virtue of his ecclesiastical office?
In the Catholic Catechism it says: “… it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his body ... The Church expresses this by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders acts in persona Christi Capitis (in the person of Christ, the Head)” (No. 1548). Or: “It is because the ministerial priesthood represents Christ that it can represent the Church.” (No. 1553)
The Episcopal ordination is also awarded the “solicitude for all the Churches”, which is why every bishop is also referred to as “successor of the apostles” (No. 1560), which is an insult – not to say a mockery – of Christ. In this way, the bishops and priests assumed the mediator function between man and God, even if they veil it with their refined theological formulations.
And also in the evangelical
Catechism it says: “As the minister administers word and sacrament, Christ acts
through him. The Apology, a Lutheran confession from 1531, says that pastors do
not present the person of Christ for the sake of the calling of the Church to
their own persons, as Christ testifies: ‘Whoever listens to you, hears me.’ When
they offer the word of Christ, when they offer the sacraments, they offer them
in the representation of Christ.” (Evangelical Adult Catechism, Hannover 1975,
4th edition, p. 1164)
When quoting this passage from the Bible, the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is falsified once more, because Jesus never spoke of pastors and priests, but meant all of his followers. But the church appropriates his words for an official doctrine that is also used, for example, in baptisms, where it says that God supposedly baptizes through the pastor – which is comparable in content to the theory that God supposedly forgives sins through the pastor. So here, too, the pastor has an assumed mediator function that has nothing to do with reality.
And all these church teachings, whether Catholic or Protestant, have nothing at all to do with Jesus, the Christ. Jesus never set up an institution in which one suddenly had certain spiritual abilities due to a certain office. That’s nonsense. This is, if you want to call it that, pagan pre-Christian idol worship! But it is presented as supposedly “Christian”, and that makes everything worse than all pre-Christian cults and worse than all current cults that do not appeal to Christ; because in this way one also appropriates and falsifies the great human teacher Jesus, the Christ, and withholds His real liberating teaching from people.
The Journalist: Does God even act through people?
The Theologian: Yes. He always acts through us when we do His will, but that has nothing to do with an ecclesiastical office.
The Journalist: Is it fundamentally possible for a person to speak to another person in the name of God, for example a prophet?
Even a prophet seldom ascribes something to a certain person,
although that would be possible and also happened every now and then with the
prophets of God in the so-called “Old Testament”. In the case of a true prophet
of God, God or certain spiritual beings who live in unity with God usually speak
in a general form through the “mouthpiece”, the prophet. And mostly the prophet
is then mocked by listeners who do not believe that he or she, the prophet, is
merely the interpreter, not the one who thought up what he was saying.
One cannot become a prophet out of human will or out of one’s own decision. A prophet is called from the spiritual world or by God, as reported by many prophets in the Old Testament. And the prophet hears this calling within himself when he lives largely in accordance with the commandments of God. A prophet of God never leads people to himself or to an institution, but always to God or to Christ, who lives in people themselves and in all forms of life in all of creation.
With an acceptance, as is customary in the churches, something completely different happens. There an ecclesiastical institution appoints certain people on the basis of their professional decision and their theological and ecclesiastical training as deputy spokespersons for an alleged action or statement of God, although it has nothing to do with God. Because God is the Free Spirit, not the institutionalized church God. This abuse belongs to “guilt, guilt, excessive guilt”, as it is prayed continuously and not without good reason in some monasteries and evangelical communities.
The Journalist: Is the guilt really that great? In our media society one has got used to many “preachers of God”, although what they say and do has little or nothing to do with Him.
The Theologian: There is a lot of charlatanism in the world and absurd opinions, whereby the burden is greater when you dress everything up with “God” and most of all when you act as a church leader as the alleged “representative of God”, If the major churches would admit that in principle they have no idea about God and are not Christian, but that they simply spread their Catholic or Protestant opinions, then they could at least reduce this guilt somewhat. What remains is still an immeasurable colossus of guilt and suffering. To sum it up:
The Church removed knowledge of the law of sowing and reaping and reincarnation from Christianity in the first six centuries after Christ (see Part 2 of this document). As a result, it has led and continues to lead countless people into despair and misguidance, and to this day it continues to deprive people of great opportunities in their lives.
The church had replaced these cosmic and just spiritual principles with an alleged “mystery of God”, which in turn led to an unparalleled “god poisoning”. Because people rightly rebel against such an allegedly mysterious god who is practically administered by such large institutions. Because, to make matters worse, they claim to this day that their pastors and priests can even mediate salvation, and that there is supposedly no other option. In this way countless people were made dependent and docile by the – I would like to say – “caste of priests” with their unfortunate threats of hell. And there are other enormously negative consequences of this abuse of God and Christ and the falsification of the basic knowledge of humankind: How many wars, acts of violence and personal disasters could have been prevented if the people would have known about reincarnation and the laws of sowing and reaping! The Church’s guilt for the condition of this world is immeasurable and cannot even come close to being expressed in words.
But gradually the bill is presented and the following applies to the individual: “Save yourself who wants to be saved.” And with regard to the end-time church, the following applies with regard to church members: “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven.” (Revelation 18:4-5)
The Journalist: In this context you speak primarily of the pastor’s guilt. But which pastor is aware of this guilt?
Every pastor stabilizes this building of deception and haughty
ignorance with his actions. And I don’t know why so few pastors ask themselves:
“What if what I am teaching is not true?” The next person often believes in it
and goes astray only because the pastor claimed that his teaching came from God.
But what gives the pastor the certainty that it really is so? His exam
certificate? His ordination or his appointment as a pastor? But what does that
have to do with God? It is nothing but human work.
Or, to come back to the presumption of pastors, allegedly to be able to forgive sins in the name of God: What if the pastor, in God’s name, pretends to forgive something that has not yet been forgiven? Can someone really believe in good conscience that the guilt they allegedly forgive as a pastor is “God’s forgiveness”? Where does he get this claim from, which is completely wrong? Isn’t that a parallel to the “story of the Fall”, where human beings are tempted to allegedly be like God? But that’s exactly what happens here: The pastor takes the place of God on his own initiative. But what is his claim based on? Only on the bloody church history. Nothing else. He can never, ever refer to God.
Many a pastor may now object that he has to act in this way ex officio. But he cannot shift his responsibility on to others because of this, and the office cannot protect him either. He chose this profession himself. And to every pastor is therefore weighed his share, for which he is responsible as a person, when people are misled and deprived of great opportunities in their lives
The Journalist: How can you imagine that?
To stick with the
earlier example of a failed marriage: The one who appears to have been
“absolved” in the church could later, possibly in the afterlife, appeal to the
pastor if negative effects from the former partnership come upon him. The pastor
had forgiven him in the name of God, why is everything in the afterlife now
being stirred up again?
The pastor, for his part, can no longer even remember this person, because only at the one “common confession”, for example in a Protestant church, did over 100 people stand up and receive “God’s forgiveness” from the pastor – each in a different life situation, most of them completely unknown to the pastor.
So how is it if one day it turns out that the “confession” and the “absolution” or “release” of one partner were jointly responsible for the fact that there was no real reassessment and reconciliation between the two? And that’s just one small example now. Under certain circumstances, as is his professional duty, a pastor has received the confessions of thousands. Then there are the many sermons. And the ecclesiastical “doctrine of confession” is again merely a small excerpt from the ecclesiastical textbook in which one error affects the other. And for each and every one of the deceptions, the pastor will one day be held accountable according to his share by the law of sowing and reaping.
The Journalist: Maybe over several incarnations?
The Theologian: Or in the other worlds ...
The Journalist: ... where the pastors and priests would go to heaven after death according to their own beliefs.
The Theologian: At some point, when they are no longer intellectual and haughty theologians, but have become children of God and have repented and made amends for everything and they were also forgiven by all their innumerable victims. Possible consequential damage through the “sacrament” of confession alone is, as I said, merely a detail. Above all, think of the countless crimes of church dignitaries that have not yet been atoned for, for example, the execution of people of different faiths, religious wars, Crusades, so-called witch burnings, the persecution of the Jews or the fact that animals are still denied having an immortal soul and to allow animal testing and the murder of animals and much, much more. In the realms of souls, everything is evident that is still hidden today, but much of it has increasingly penetrated the public since 2010 due to the sexual abuse of children by pastors and priests. And all crimes, if they are not forgiven and made good in time, will sooner or later fall back on those responsible, and I am convinced that this also includes the suffering we have done to the animals and continue to do to them every day.
The Journalist: Is this perhaps one of the reasons why the law of sowing and reaping and the knowledge of reincarnation are no longer taught in the churches? Then the church authorities would have to teach that they themselves also come under it and that the numerous unpunished crimes in church history still have an effect, provided that the effect has not already occurred?
The Theologian: Generally answered: Someone who knows about the law of sowing and reaping will behave differently than someone who believes he can escape possible effects under the guise of an instantly forgiving “grace”. But the future will soon bring everything to light.
The Journalist: There are reports of people who were once very close to death, but then did not die after all. In many reports there is talk of a life film. In the face of death, the dying person becomes aware of many stations in his life again, just like a film in fast motion. Can you say that all the seeds of life are revealed?
The Theologian: The rewinding of the life film is once again a great opportunity to find repentance here and there even when the earthly body dies and to ask for forgiveness. In this phase the soul is mostly highly sensitive, even if it can no longer articulate itself through its body. But what does the Church teach? It gives dying people up to organ transplantation, which triggers unspeakable pain that cannot be put into words and also takes away these opportunities for the dying who need loving company when passing over. One literally tears the alleged “love of neighbor” out of their bodies in order to put another earthly life into mental confusion with these foreign body parts. Because every organ in the human body is individually shaped by the soul residing in the body and none can be exchanged without harm to the recipient, even if it may look different for a while. Organ transplantation ultimately means serious suffering for organ donors and organ recipients. How do people pray in the Church while they are still alive? “My guilt, my guilt, my massive guilt.” It would be better if they would finally repent, because the guilt is not so easily taken away from them. Everything will be evident. And sooner or later everything will become apparent. Everyone continues to shoot their life film every day and in this film they store what they do, say, think, feel and feel. Everything is visible in the hereafter that can still be hidden in this world. The essentials of this are also recorded in the “Book of Life”, in the soul. And this book is also the spiritual magnet, which works according to the principle: Like always attracts like. The positive draws to the positive, the negative to the negative. So the law of sowing and reaping can also be grasped well from this picture.
The Journalist: Doesn’t the positive pole move to the negative in physical magnetism?
The Theologian: Yes, of course. In the spiritual there is also a comparable polarity, namely the attraction of the male and female poles. As with positive-negative physical magnetism, here the male draws to the female and vice versa. The sentence “like draws to like” is not about this kind of polarity, but about the mentality or the degree of purity or burden on the soul. This is a different form of attraction, but nevertheless also logical and according to the spiritual laws or the laws of nature.
The Journalist: If someone is facing something negative, has something correspondingly negative been recorded in his book of life?
Both a negative and a
positive record act as a magnet, attracting something similar again. For
example, if a negative event occurs in my life, a corresponding negative magnet
was recorded in the book of life, in my soul. So now I am suffering what was
already recorded in my life book or in my life film, because I did it to someone
else and did not clear it up. That is how justice works at the same time.
With this picture one can once again summarize the law of sowing and reaping and the possible consequences. Do I increase my fate by, for example, building up reproaches against others when I am suffering? Or do I clear up the underlying magnet by first becoming aware of: Did I once do to others what happened to me today? That was the magnet. That was the shadow that settled on my soul. Today I often feel in my world of feelings what is written in my soul, in the book of life. But I don’t need to know to what extent this may come from one or more past incarnations. What matters is the internal content that I am aware of, not the external details. And for those who want to follow Christ, the following applies in this situation: I can ask Christ for help. Christ stands by me as a brother or as the inner power of redemption. That is also the mercy that I am always offered.
Many people who know nothing or do not want to know anything about Christ, perhaps because they have an aversion to the Church-Christ, still have a relation to this power within themselves.
To all applies: If I have recognized something negative, there is a chance to clear it up today. If I take the chance, then the pages of my life book or the new reels of the life film will get brighter and clearer and I will feel better and better.
The Journalist: The second part of the conversation will focus on what Jesus of Nazareth and the first Christians taught on the subject of “sowing and reaping” and “reincarnation” or “reembodiment”. But first the question: What do the Catholic and Protestant Churches say about what you call the “law of sowing and reaping”?
The Theologian: Although the law of sowing and reaping is in their Bibles, even literally in the Letter from Paul to the Galatians (6:7), this belief was relativized, or qualified, in the churches. This means: It is no longer taught that this sentence always applies and not just now and then, depending on the opinion of church officials and their interests. Instead, the churches draw attention to a “faith” that they define or on alleged external “means of grace”, so-called “sacraments”, or on other ecclesiastical acts that they themselves or their forerunners constructed. This includes the Church sacrament of Confession. The church confession to a pastor would allegedly remove the guilt of a negative seed, but this is not true at all. We've already talked about this.
The Journalist: And what about knowing about reincarnation?
The Theologian: The basis for this was banished from the ecclesiastical faith in 543 at the Synod of Constantinople and in 553 at the Council of Constantinople, after there had been disputes about it beforehand. In Constantinople two doctrines of the Bible teacher Origen (185-186 till 254) were then “cursed”, which are the prerequisite or goal of reembodiment or reincarnation. The tenets are ...
1.) ... the belief that the soul of a person already exists before the conception and birth of that person.
2.) ... the belief that one day all people will find their way to God again.
The first is called “pre-existence
of the soul” in theology, the second there is called “universal reconciliation”.
Origen, who taught such things, was, according to the words of his pupil Rufin, initially someone who was intent on “only believing as truth that which in no way deviates from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”. (Rufin in Peri Archon I, Praefatio 2)
In Canon 9 of the document of the Catholic Synod of Constantinople directed against Origen in 543, however, some of his beliefs are rejected (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, Freiburg 1965, 34th edition, No. 403 and No. 411 or Neuner-Roos, The Teaching of the Catholic Church as Contained in Her Documents, Mercier Press, Ldt. 1967, No. 199 and No. 808). Instead, the new teaching prevailed in the church that a human soul was created anew by God at the same time as the person concerned was begotten, and that a large proportion of human beings would be condemned forever after death. A closer look shows that this should then apply to the vast majority of them, which on sober observation follows from the fact that they do not meet the Catholic conditions for the ecclesiastically defined salvation of the soul (e.g. Neuner-Roos, loc. Cit., No. 812-815, especially the "infallible" proposition No. 813). Already a curse is supposed to plunge the cursed into an allegedly eternal hell, even if he considers the rest of the church structure to be true.
About 150 years before the synod,
the church patriarch Theophiles of Alexandria had condemned Origen for the first
time. And approximately at the year 399 Theophiles had also begun to organize
the destruction of the approx. 2000 writings of the Origen. Church teacher
Jerome (345-420) describes, for example, how the troops of the Catholic
Patriarch attack early Christian groups all over Palestine and immediately burn
the Origen writings there. (Epistula 86; after Robert Sträuli, Origenes, der
Diamantene, Zurich 1987, p. 317)
Where the censorship authorities of the Church had no objections, however, Origen is cited in its documents to this day, in ten places in the current Catholic Catechism alone.
The Journalist: Did Origen also believe in reincarnation?
The Theologian: Yes. However, it was not immediately condemned at the Synod and the subsequent Council of Constantinople in 553 – for one simple reason: Only traces of it were left in Origen’s writings that were still preserved. Which they are and why they were just traces, more on that in a moment. As already stated: Much has been destroyed by the Church by then. However, what could still be read unequivocally and clearly with Origen in the 6th century, are the prerequisites for reincarnation and its goal. Theologians use the terms “pre-existence of the soul” and “all-reconciliation” for this. These two doctrines were condemned in Constantinople.
However, there is still evidence in the synodal documents that Origen also taught reincarnation, in the introduction to the original Edict of Emperor Justinian from the year 543. In this historical document, a doctrine of the Church directed against Origen, literally reads: “A part of the spiritual beings, as he [Origen] thinks, has fallen into sin, and banned into bodies as a punishment; according to the measure of their sins, they are imprisoned in a body for the second or third time and even more often to return to their former sinless and disembodied state after complete purification.” (quoted from Franz Diekamp, The Origenistic Disputes in the 6th Century and the Fifth General Council, Münster 1899, p. 46)
The Journalist: That’s clear. Why is it then sometimes stated as controversial in the corresponding comments whether the well-known scholar believed in reincarnation?
The Theologian: Church theologians mostly refer in this context to the Commentary by Origen on the Gospel of Matthew, in which, among other things, there is talk of an “erroneous doctrine of the transmigration of souls” (Comm. in Matthew X:20). Origen further criticizes in this commentary the “apparently wrong” view of the teacher and writer Basilides (c. 85-145), as it is said that the “reincarnation of souls after death” is supposedly the only punishment for sins. (Comm. in Mathew III)
Such a criticism of the theory of Basilides is completely correct from an early Christian point of view and the knowledge of reincarnation there – because Basilides did not interpret the circumstances of the possibility of reincarnation in accordance with Christian doctrine. The possibility of such a re-embodiment is in fact neither a “penalty for sin” nor even “the only penalty for sin”, but a huge opportunity for purification, clearing up and making amends. Even then, the term “transmigration of souls” was understood to mean the belief that a human soul in another incarnation could, for example, “migrate” into an animal body. From an early Christian point of view, this is wrong or “erroneous”, according to the formulation in the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. So if someone describes this doctrine of the migration of souls as “erroneous”, as is also the case in this comment attributed to Origen that does not mean at all that he fundamentally rejects the possibility of reincarnation, as some church commentators sometimes suggest. “Migration of souls” in this sense is something different than the reincarnation of an immortal human soul in another human body.
But the theologians who want to deny Origen his knowledge of reincarnation bring up another argument. Then I would like to quote the evidence that reincarnation was early Christian knowledge and also part of the teaching of Origen. In a third place in this commentary, however, Origen is supposed to also turn against the knowledge of reincarnation. In its traditional literal form, this is: “I do not want to succumb to the doctrine of reincarnation, which is alien to the Church of God ...” (Comm. XIII I), which is neither narrated by the apostles nor appears “anywhere in the scriptures”. The latter is not true, which I can say a few more words about. And with the sentence that he does not want to “succumb” to the “doctrine of reincarnation”, it is now time to refer to the role of Origen’s disciple Rufin who verifiably revised or falsified many passages from the Origen writings afterward. To this also the proofs in a moment. As you can see, the whole subject is very complex. Here, too, there is a very strong suspicion that the Origen commentary was subsequently fudged or falsified. For example, one would only have to replace the word “transmigration of souls” with “reemodiment”, but that is my speculation now. Something else is certain: Origen’s pupil Rufin himself admitted in 398 that he had subsequently corrected the writings of his teacher Origen, when he got hold of them, in accordance with church dogma, “in order to protect his teacher from the ecclesiastical charge of being a false teacher” (Praefatio, loc. cit.). Subsequently “corrected” can also be described less smoothly as a forgery or at least as a false impression. So where Rufin changed the writings of Origen in this sense that he himself admitted, he apparently left only the so-called “pre-existence of the soul” and the “universal reconciliation” as Origen’s teaching, since these contents up to the years 543 and 553 were still allowed by the Church. And the continuation of this development is well known: In the 6th century these were also cursed.
The Journalist: That sounds very exciting. And quite obviously it shows the spiritual struggle about this teaching already in the 3rd and 4th century. You spoke of evidence that supports this thesis of forgeries in the Origen writings? Is there more to this than Rufin’s own confession?
The Theologian: Yes. When in the 20th century, precisely in the year 1941, during the 2nd World War, 28 papyrus sheets of an original Greek scripture of Origen – his commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans – were found in Toura in northern Egypt, then even the proof of a serious forgery was provided. A comparison of this find with the later “revision” = falsification of the Origen’s text by his student Rufin gave the following result, and I quote from the specialist commentary of the renowned classical scholar and so-called papyrologist Jean Scherer: “A personal, profound and varied intervention in the text.” (Jean Scherer, Le Commentaire d´Origène sur Rom. III.5-V.7, Institut Francais d´ Archeology, Cairo 1952)
Specifically, Rufin added, left
out, simplified, rearranged and changed essentials and here is an example of
this. And that Rufin did this where he could, especially where reincarnation is
concerned, is a probability bordering on certainty, for on this subject Origen
was “threatened” with condemnation by the Catholic Church as early as the 4th
And that it really was, is shown above all by the fact that there are further clear statements that, conversely, prove his knowledge of reincarnation. But these are usually kept secret by church theologians. For example, a passage from Origen has come down to us that – as expected – is missing in the editions edited or falsified by Rufin. It can, however, be read in the Origen writings, as they were still available to the church saint Jerome. There Origen writes about the human being: “In doing so, he changes his body just as often as he changes his residence on the descent from heaven to earth.” (Peri Archon I, 5.3 quoted from Origen, Four Books of Principles, Ed. Herwig Görgemanns / Heinrich Karpp, Darmstadt 1976, pp. 203-205)
The Journalist: That sounds like the deciphering of a secret that the Church has since withheld from people.
It is an unparalleled
misleading of people by the Catholic Church, and the example of Origen’s
writings is only one aspect of it. If you consider the consequences for the
actions of people, depending on whether you think this or that is right, then
there was actually a struggle for an essential course of world historical
importance in the declining old Roman Empire, and devilry ostensibly gained the
upper hand. In the period that followed, it shaped the so-called “main stream”,
as one might say today, from which the history of the church emerged, known to
be an unparalleled story of blood and horror. By way of comparison, no one who
knows about the law of sowing and reaping and about reincarnation (negated by
the Catholic church), would start or kill in a war, to name but one example.
This sentence of Origen about a person who changes his body several times also makes another sentence – cautiously formulated by Origen himself or correspondingly redesigned by Rufin – more understandable, quoted from his work De Principiis: “Thus think the foolish and the unbelieving that our flesh perishes after death in such a way that nothing of its substance remains; but we, who believe in his resurrection, recognize that in death there is only one transformation, but its substance, that is certain, remains and is brought back to life at a certain time by the will of its Creator, and then a new transformation takes place.” (p. 659)
And further in this sense: The question of the Patriarch Theophiles can be read in Jerome who had already condemned the teaching of Origen around the years 399 and 400 as “rags from the garb of the philosophers”. It is: “But what does it mean when he [Origen] declares that souls are repeatedly tied to bodies and separated from them again” (Epistula 98, 11, quoted from De Principiis I, 8, Anh. I, op. Cit., p. 279). That is once more clear.
But ecclesiastical dogma
constructors and their followers were very inventive here too. This is how the
Jesuit and Catholic theology professor Dr. Medard Kehl for example deemed this
quote from Theophiles “not to be too truthful” due to his polemical hostility to
Origen (Letter of March 30, 2000 to the “Origen Working Group”). Suddenly
one of the most recognized representatives of the great church, the Patriarch
Theophiles, is said to be untruthful. After all, it is admitted by Dr. Medard
Kehl, the “academic” in the ranks of the Vatican Church, also: “It seems
certain that Origenistic monks in Egypt in the 5th Century stood up for the
teaching of reincarnation.” But why did the monks, who referred to Origen, think
that way? Because Origen obviously taught it that way.
And you can also add the following: Since the early Christian faith of Origen from the middle of the 6th Century was fought and partially condemned by the Church, suggests that in the following period far more was destroyed than before.
The Journalist: Overall, however, the finding is still clear enough. Why don’t the institutions of the Church see this?
If the Vatican Church were to admit even one error, its entire system of dogmas
and articles of faith would collapse like a house of cards. For example, it says
in the collections of dogmas in the Roman Catholic Church about ecclesiastical
faith: “… for anyone who does not maintain this whole and inviolate will surely
be lost eternally” (Neuner-Roos, No. 836).
immediately expressed himself in this sense shortly after taking office in 2013.
In the concrete individual case, that is, when asked whether the early Christian scholar Origen believed in reincarnation, some things are related to another factual question that I have just touched on. For the academically interested contemporaries it is always a question of whether some of the text versions at hand were formulated cautiously or in question form either by Origen himself or by the falsifying Rufin.
And here is to be considered: Rufin lived around the year 400. And deviations from the Rome Church, which had recently become the only state religion, were already subject to the death penalty.
Thus it is written in a further place in the delivered Origen’s writings, one must, “attentively and more deeply study and see whether it is possible or not that it [occurs] the soul enters a body for a second time …” (Commentary on John VI, chap. 7)
Or: If someone can prove certain prerequisites, then, according to Origen, “it follows inevitably that physical being is not original, but comes into existence at time intervals ... and this continues”. (Peri Archon IV, 4:8)
And so you can enumerate a lot more, so that gradually a reliable overall picture emerges: The story of Jacob and Esau in the book of Genesis in the Bible (chap. 25 ff.). Origen comments as follows: “We must assume that he [Jacob] was chosen over his brother because of past life merits.” (Peri Archon IV, 4:8)
And on it goes, one could say: In yet another passage Origen explains the possibility “that as a result of some previous moral accomplishments, one becomes a vessel of honor now [in this life] and then if he does not do what is a vessel of honor and is appropriate for another period of life becomes a vessel of dishonor”. (Peri Archon III, 1:23)
If you consider what speaks for a certain finding and what against it, then anyone who has not sacrificed his common sense to Catholic dogmas, can only come to the result: Origen clearly knew about the possibility of reincarnation.
Church theologians absolutely want to deny Origen his belief in reincarnation, probably in order to be able to keep the original knowledge of reincarnation away from honest seekers of God even today. So when they are confronted with it, they reinterpret his statements about earlier and later lives according to their church opinions. They say, for example, that an earlier life must be related to an earlier life of the soul in the hereafter, but not to an earlier life on earth. Or they boldly maintain, Origen would have meant a life before an alleged “original state” of the creation or a life in “new” ages after the end of this “world time”. But these are ultimately crude and hair-drawn interpretations. It usually remains open what the respective church theologians then fabricated into these ideas constructed by their intellect and what they have kept secrets to this day.
The Journalist: So the spiritual struggle continues on this level as well.
The Theologian: And it is being led on many fronts. Fortunately, in our time, the church's monopoly on interpretation is no longer recognized, which it even claims for itself in dogma. For example, the Swiss researcher Robert Sträuli explains, using the example of Origen’s pupil Didymos (313-398): “In the Christian school in Alexandria, the doctrine of reincarnation was still part of the Christian doctrine as a matter of course.” (Sträuli, loc. Cit., pp. 229 ff.; 312 f.)
What Origen actually turned against, however, is the belief in a transmigration of souls (metempsychosis) from a human soul into animals or plants, as I pointed out earlier. And with that, he correctly reproduces the early Christian teaching, because this idea was and is not part of early Christianity. Instead, it was and still applies there: A human soul can incarnate again only in a human body, no longer in an animal or in a plant. This in turn is based on belief in Christ as the Savior. But that would be a different topic, it would lead too far here.
The Journalist: I would like to come back to the Rufin quote, according to which Origen was allegedly intent on, “only believing as truth that which in no way deviates from the church and apostolic tradition” (Rufin in Peri Archon I, Praefatio 2). Whether the so-called “ecclesiastical tradition” really applies to Origen, remains to be seen. But it probably applies to some church members today. They grew up in the Church and would probably be willing to endorse Church doctrine if it were correct. But as soon as they no longer take on everything for themselves without checking, but instead start looking for the truth themselves, they come to completely different results.
Yes. The Church therefore likes to refer to people like “Doctor of the
Church” Augustine (354-430), who consciously chose the Catholic faith, although
he had known the doctrine of reincarnation. For example, he prayed:
“Say, Lord, to me, Thy suppliant;
say, all-pitying, to me, Thy pitiable one; say, did my infancy succeed another
age of mine that died before it? Was it that which I spent within my mother's
womb? … and what before that life again, O God my joy, was I any where or any
(ConfessionsSaintAgustin. chap. 6)
What bothered Augustine about reincarnation or reembodiment, was, that the following was conceivable: In an earthly life, two people within a family are the mother and her son. The mother dies and her soul later reincarnates in a girl. This grows into a woman and could later become the son’s wife (newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm). This constellation is only a construction of Augustine, but it is also not impossible. Relatives in particular often incarnate repeatedly in the same family, whereby they can actually change the “roles” within the family or clan, according to the law of sowing and reaping. For example, if a father does not treat his son well, he may be born as the son of this son in a later earthly life. And now he has to experience firsthand, what has become of the son, whom he once treated badly and who has now become his father himself, his father.
The fact that intellectual churchmen like Augustine, who in other treatises with ice-cold sadism on allegedly never-ending torments in the hereafter of those who think differently, do not recognize these possible aspects of justice, speaks in this case even for their truthfulness.
The Journalist: Can you explain in more detail, beyond what has just been said, why the knowledge of reincarnation is one of the foundations of the Christian faith?
One can assume this knowledge in everything that Jesus of Nazareth
taught, and this was also clear to many contemporaries.
I quote a few lines from the book Brother Jesus – The Nazarenes from a Jewish Perspective by the well-known Jewish religious scholar Shalom Ben Chorin: “The idea of being born again is an obvious popular belief in Judaism of the time of Jesus ... So the people thought Jesus was one of the old prophets who came again (Luke 9:8 and 19). There are often strange notes in the Talmud that suggest a belief in the migration of souls or in rebirth, such as the remark: ‘Mordecai, that is Samuel.’ Here it should be said that the Jew Mordecai, the uncle of Queen Esther, was a rebirth of the prophet Samuel ...” (dtv-Taschenbuch, Munich 1977, p. 25)
Whoever wants to question the competence of the Jewish scientist here could object that the Greek text of the Gospel of Luke speaks of a possible “appearance” or “resurrection” of an old prophet and that one does not necessarily have to infer a belief in reincarnation from this . But what would an “appearance” or “resurrection” in a new body be other than a reincarnation? Unless, instead, one would suggest something in which possibly another way the original and long decayed body would have become young and powerful again. But with such constructions of thought it quickly becomes absurd.
This does not provide any biblical proof of reincarnation in early Christianity, but the evidence is extensive and all point in this direction.
For example, the Jewish general and historian Flavius Josephus (37/38-100) also gives indications of the belief in reincarnation among the influential group of the Pharisees in the first century. Josephus was almost a contemporary of Jesus. In addition, Origen (ca. 185-254), who had carried out very thorough studies of this time, writes later that the Jerusalem Jews with whom Jesus spoke apparently believed in reincarnation. (Commentary on John VI, Chap. 7)
The Journalist: They said Josephus was almost a contemporary of Jesus, and he wrote about the Pharisees. That sparks my interest. What exactly did Flavius Josephus write?
He wrote about the faith of
the Pharisees that “every soul is imperishable, but the soul of the good alone
passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal
punishment”. (Google Books, The Topical Josephus, by Cleon L. Rogers, Jr.,
To begin with, one can say: The more detailed circumstances of a possible reincarnation would be perverted here, since it is precisely the so-called “bad guys”, who are supposed to make up for their previous wrongdoing in one or more further incarnations. The so-called “good guys” would no longer need to incarnate if they had found their way back to life in the “Spirit of God” in their past earthly life. Furthermore, as expected, church theologians deny that the “other body” in Pharisaic thought means another earthly body.
But Josephus himself probably understands it as an “earthly body”, and he was a Jew who knew the Pharisees better than later theologians of another culture.
In another context, Flavius Josephus then sets out his own faith, which is very much related to the Pharisaic. There Josephus warns the Jewish soldiers against committing suicide in the face of the overwhelming strength of the Roman troops, and he writes about those who do not kill themselves: “… their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence in the revolution of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies, while the souls of those who have acted madly against themselves are received by the darkest place in Hades”. (quoted in Google Books: Embrace the World by Jacque A. Meyer, p. 33)
So far Josephus. But what kind of “body” is that supposed to be according to Josephus’ belief?
You can turn it around and interpret it however you want, there is always a trace of the belief in reincarnation in Judaism of that time. And such and similar ideas belonged more or less to the “popular belief” of that time, as the Jewish religious scholar Shalom Ben Chorin confirms [see the verbal contribution before]. So Jesus was able to assume some things from his contemporaries that were later completely buried by church tradition.
The Journalist: Do Church theologians see it the same way?
This development in
ecclesiastical Christianity is confirmed by, among others, the Protestant
theology professor Dr. Hans Schwarz, who after intensive research wrote about
the beliefs in the 1st century: “Apparently the belief in reincarnation was so
well known that its pictures could be used to illustrate the far less common
belief in the resurrection” (Hans Schwarz, Wir werden weiterleben, Die
Botschaft der Bibel von Unsterblichkeit …,
Freiburg 1984, p. 51)
– here again the typically messed up Church thinking. Because practically
Professor Dr. Hans Schwarz here simply and plainly says: People believed in
And about the 2nd century, the Protestant theologian writes more directly: We are “amazed to find that reincarnation was a widespread idea”. (p. 50)
Thus, we can summarize as follows: The knowledge of reincarnation is known in Jesus’ environment in some variants, so that Jesus could assume it in His teachings. This is also one of several explanations why not so much has been transmitted directly on the subject.
The second explanation is that this tradition was and is not in the interest of the Church, which meant death for the individual who believed in it, which is why most of the testimonies were preserved only outside of the Bible in the so-called Apocrypha (= hidden scriptures).
And there is also a third, very practical explanation: A community that wants to help a Kingdom of Peace or a “Kingdom of God” to break through on Earth will not concern itself too much with reincarnation, neither with reference to the past nor speculatively to the future. Rather, one will take care of the tasks of the present with all one’s might.
However, Jesus naturally repeatedly applies the “law of sowing and reaping” to everything that the present brings for the individual and for a community, [see Jesus taught the law of sowing and reaping]. And the fact is that this “law of sowing and reaping” is correct only if earlier or later lives are included, so that the subject of “reincarnation” is always in the background. In theory, earlier lives could only be earlier lives in the hereafter. The fact that people should not have made mistakes in this world, but allegedly only in speculative past life in the other, seems very constructed, based on the motto that what should not be in the Church should not be. And such a way of thinking is not confirmed anywhere else either. With this topic, too, the obvious thing is reincarnation.
And when in the pre-medieval church, methods are developed how to combat the belief in the “pre-existence of the soul”, which is taught in the early Christian communities, this attack ultimately aims at the knowledge of reincarnation. When this belief in the pre-existence of the soul was condemned by the Church at the Council of Constantinople (553), which in the following period soon resulted in the death penalty for those who believed in this way, the knowledge of reincarnation becomes unspoken, but deliberately damned, too.
Another example is interesting.
Doctor of the Church Jerome (347-419) also deals with this supposed “heresy” in
his letter to Demetrias, which has “many secret followers in certain
snakepits so to speak” (Chap. 16, V. 11-12), as Jerome writes. But why
“secret” followers? The answer to this is very clear, and I want to repeat it
From the year 380 on, deviating beliefs from Catholicism were already subject to the death penalty. So the of anyone who believed in reincarnation was in great danger. And in hindsight that is even the most plausible argument for the fact that the early Christians, who knew about this looming danger, sometimes spoke, carefully feeling their way, only about the “pre-existence of the soul”. Because until the Council of Constantinople, this belief was not yet cursed by the Catholic anathema, the allegedly perpetual cursing with the threat of a previous death penalty, but rather it was tolerated by the totalitarian Catholic coercive state up to the years 543 or 553.
The Journalist: You also mentioned Jerome in connection with reincarnation. Wasn’t Jerome significantly involved in the creation of the Bible?
The Theologian: Yes. In its present form, the Bible did not come into being until the late 4th century. Jerome received the order from the pope at that time to produce a uniform Latin text from different versions of the Bible. And he apparently did not advocate reincarnation, which may have had a decisive influence on the writing of the Bible.
The Journalist: What influence did Jerome have on the Bible text? Or who else has influenced or determined what should ultimately be in the Bible?
The Theologian: First Pope Damasus I must be named, who commissioned the uniform Bible.
Damasus I had taken over the papal throne in the years 366 and 367 after bloody
battles between his supporters and his opponents. One day 137 dead were found in
a church, who were slain there by the followers of Damasus.
I say this because many people believe that the Bible was inspired by the “Spirit of God” without knowing which “spirits” and who were behind it can be proven to have been involved in its creation.
As Pope, Damasus I was known for his ostentatiousness and “feasts”, “in which his table even overshadows a royal meal”. (Ammianus Marcellinus, Röm. Geschichte 27, 3, 4, quoted from Adolf Martin Ritter, Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte in Quellen, Volume 1, p. 173)
So this Pope commissioned Jerome to produce a uniform Bible. And his new text, the so-called Vulgate, was declared “flawless” by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – much later.
Nevertheless, Jerome wrote the following in a letter to Pope Damasus I: “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? Now there are two consoling reflections which enable me to bear the odium in the first place, the command is given by you who are the supreme bishop; and secondly, even on the showing of those who revile us, readings at variance with the early copies cannot be right.”
The Journalist: The editor of the Bible is not convinced of the truth of the matter himself.
Jerome criticizes some of his predecessors as “unreliable
translators”. He also writes of “Improvements for the worse by
incompetent text critics” or about “Additions or changes by
inattentive copyists”. (Gospel revision, op. Cit., Preface)
The “Doctor of the Church” just gives insight into the genesis of the “Latin” Bible, that is, the Latin translations. Nevertheless, I think it is important to point out his criticism clearly here. Because even with the Greek “original text” tradition, there were numerous revisions and new formulations, especially in the early days.
Because the biblical evangelists have verifiably edited, that is, changed, the sources available to them, they are rightly called “editors”. Just like there are editors at a newspaper today who revise in their own way the manuscripts sent in by the journalists, so that sometimes something completely different comes out than the first writer put into an original text.
In summary one can say: The biblical texts are all in all the work of the emerging official Church with its dogmas.
The “concern about the revision of the Latin Bible translations” is, for example, in our time “the greatest merit“ called by Pope Damasus I. (Ritter, op. Cit., p. 181). Although the texts of the Bible contain many authentic references about the life of Jesus, they are not considered historically reliable sources by scholars.
And if you compare all of the testimonies about reincarnation that you have received, you can say: Despite the Church doctrine, which developed quite differently, they remained or were found again. Seen in this way, this finding is very good and conclusive. However, we do not know what possible amount, viewed as a whole, was lost, destroyed or not passed on.
But you can also remember something else here: The subject was not as essential to Jesus as other subjects.
The Journalist: What is then essential for Him?
The Theologian: Jesus points to the coming Kingdom of Peace, the kingdom of God, which is to arise on Earth, as it says in the Lord’s Prayer: “On earth as it is in heaven.” This requires people who are ready to turn back in their own life, to “repent”, to put aside their bad attitudes, so that it does not remain with words, but also corresponding deeds become visible. That is why Jesus himself heals many diseases, for example. He also invites people to trust God. This is possible because God is a loving Father who helps people in every situation to be able to take the steps towards Him.
The Journalist: What role does reincarnation play in this?
This knowledge helps people
to recognize themselves and to repent. And when a person then follows Jesus,
sooner or later he will find his way out of the “wheel of rebirth”.
However, anyone who goes beyond this basic knowledge to deal with details of the topic of reincarnation runs the risk of getting entangled in speculations about previous lives or making themselves important instead of using the chance of this life. And only the present life matters, everything else is in the past. But since everything that has not been cleared up from previous lives comes back in new clothing at the right time according to the law of sowing and reaping, so that it is cleared this time, all that is required is vigilance in this life. Jesus also taught it this way.
The Journalist: However, some people have themselves be taken back into earlier lives through hypnosis. Such regressions are understood as reincarnation therapy. And people expect an inner gain from this experience.
However, I also know of many contrary experiences. Exact knowledge of
situations from previous lives can be very stressful, can distract people from
the tasks of the present, can even lead them into despair, if they cannot cope
with what then breaks out all at once.
In the context of the return of a soul from the hereafter to a new human body – similar to the philosopher Plato – Jesus speaks of a “cup with the drink of forgetting”. (Das Evangelium der Pistis Sophia, herausgegeben von C.M. Siegert, Bad Teinach-Zavelstein 1991, 2nd edition, p. 234)
In Greek mythology, the Lethe river has this function. According to some traditions, when a soul is born again, it must first drink from the Lethe river so that it cannot remember its previous lives. The “drink of forgetting” is thus part of the original knowledge of humankind. The lack of remembrance serves as protection for people and helps them to concentrate on the here and now. The “sinful” is temporarily “forgotten”. But its contents become conscious or active in the course of this earthly life to the extent that they can be mastered. As a rule, this is not associated with concrete memories of previous lives, but one comes into situations that are similar to or resemble the events of previous lives that were not dealt with. Sometimes the same souls even meet again, only in new human bodies and – depending on the life task at hand – in similar or completely different life constellations.
The Journalist: That's not written in the Bible though.
The Theologian: We find most of the information on the teaching of reincarnation, as already mentioned, in so-called apocryphal writings, which were not included in the Bible by the emerging mainstream church and are therefore considered “hidden” (= apocryphal) there.
These words of Jesus about the “cup
with the drink of forgetting” come from a Gospel written in the 2nd century,
which is older than the oldest known manuscripts of the biblical Gospels from
the 4th century. This does not automatically make its content more credible, and
it is precisely this Gospel that is partly lost in dubious esoteric
speculations; however, just like the biblical scriptures, it can contain both
truths and falsities. In addition, further information or traces of
reincarnation can be found in the so-called “Doctors of the Church”. whose
writings are also older than the biblical manuscripts. And that also means:
closer to early Christianity.
Some speak of “pouring over the souls”, for example, the well-known Doctor of the Church Clemens of Alexandria (around 200; Stromateis III, 13:3), who is also recognized in the Church.
By the way, the soul needs some time to find its way around in the respective new body and it forms it in the following time according to its memories from its past lives.
The question of whether a human soul can also incarnate in an animal body was a reason for ridicule and controversy even at that time. Just as it is a popular mockery today. “Doctor of the Church” Justin (approx. 110-165), for example, denies this question as well as another question, whether the soul can look to God after its passage into the hereafter.
The Journalist: The answer, if I understood you correctly, would be that death does not change whether someone envisions God more or less.
Yes. We can compare death to sleep. Also it brings us neither closer to God nor
does it move Him further away.
By way of comparison, The soul also leaves the human body in sleep, but remains connected to it by a spiritual “silver band”. With death this silver band separates, which has as a consequence: A return of the soul to this body is then no longer possible. But these processes during sleep or death do not change anything in the character of the person or in what he has sown and will consequently reap.
The silver band or the silver cord is also mentioned in the Bible. In the book Preacher (or Kohelet) it says: “Think of your Creator in the early years, before the days of sickness come ... yes, before the silver cord breaks ...” (12, 1.6a). So the Bible also contains this valuable spiritual knowledge. In the Hebrew and Aramaic Handwörterbuch von Wilhelm Gesenius (17th edition, Berlin 1962), the silver cord is also explained as a “pictorial name for the thread of life”. And the book Preacher gives the people a powerful warning here: “Already as a young person live according to the commandments of the Creator God! Because if one day ‘the silver cord breaks, the chance is wasted.” And who knows when that will be?
The Journalist: From the Bible again to the “Apocrypha”: The Gospel of Pistis Sophia, from which you quoted earlier, is not counted as part of early Christianity by church historiography, but as part of the so-called “Gnosis”. In German one translates the word “Gnosis” with “knowledge”.
Gnosis is no longer a common word today, and one could best compare it
with what is called “esotericism” today. The developing official Church
distinguished itself at that time from individual movements, from which some
called themselves at that time “Gnostic” and which they also called the science
of Jesus “Gnosis”. Hence this word.
But early Christianity is something different from this so-called “Gnosis”. The early Christians are a movement of their own that was always in danger of being taken over by the Church. On the other hand, there was also the danger of being taken over by so-called “Gnostics”. Both directions were primarily concerned with a certain doctrine and only secondarily with practical action. And so that this activity has hand and foot and is not hypocritical, it also needs real self-recognition, which also includes the subconscious and does not spare one’s own ego. Jesus of Nazareth therefore always led people to self-recognition when they were ready for it. That was uncomfortable, as His calls of woe to the Pharisees and scribes of the day show. They did not accept what Jesus had held against them and instead rebelled against Him and pushed ahead with His execution.
The Journalist: Could you clarify once again to what extent His followers then distinguished themselves from both the evolving Church and from esoteric Gnosis.
It was always a tightrope
walk for early Christianity. One has resisted the ecclesiastical appropriation,
for example, by resisting all approaches of institutionalization and
externalization. This means the introduction of rigid offices and so-called
sacraments by converting symbolic acts into supposedly necessary rites for
salvation. Where this important demarcation has succeeded, however, it then
happened that the emerging power church included early Christian movements and
groups in the so-called “Gnosis”, which the Church fought just as much as early
Christianity. Because even the so-called Gnostics did not accept the emerging
church hierarchies and cults.
But there are sometimes considerable differences between Gnosis and early Christian life, even in teaching. For example, the early Christian teaching that the material world emerged from the spiritual world as a result of the “Fall” differs from Gnostic teaching systems. According to Gnostic ideas, which, however, are also not uniform, there is usually a special creator god of matter who is not identical with the benevolent Savior God.
Furthermore, the Gnostics were sometimes unworldly theorists. This is strongly related to some source writings of Gnosis, often detailed descriptions from astral otherworldly areas, which are more like a philosophy reading than a practical life school for honest seekers of God.
Genuine early Christians, on the other hand, were practical, natural and simple-thinking people who also earned their living in very realistic occupations, for example as craftsmen.
As far as the truth is concerned, the same applies to the Apocrypha as a whole as to the biblical writings: They can contain Christian and non-Christian or accurate representations or errors. For the early Christian faith, it is not so much a matter of spiritual knowledge, insofar as one can get lost meticulously in details. But what does my fellow human being, those around me, benefit from it? The focus is on practical action, summarized the life according to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus of Nazareth.
The Journalist: What traces of reincarnation or what remnants of this knowledge are there in the Bible? You mentioned earlier in connection with Origen about prophets who may have reincarnated?
Yes. There are several. “Jesus of Nazareth once asked His disciples:
Who do the people say that the Son of Man is? They said: 'Some say you are John
the Baptist, others that you are Elijah, still others that you are Jeremiah or
one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:13b-14)
In other words: Some believed that John, who had recently been executed, was either resurrected from the dead or he might not be dead at all. And others believed that one of the prophets of God, possibly Elijah or Jeremiah, had reincarnated in Jesus.
And this is what people believed about John the Baptist. For example, Jesus of Nazareth confirms, according to the biblical words, the belief that John is the reincarnated Elijah. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: “And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who is to come. He who ears to hear, let him hear.” (11:14)
Later a dialogue develops on this topic again, and it is written in the Church Bible as follows: “And the disciples asked him, ‘Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?’ He answered, ‘Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased.’” (17:10-12)
The Journalist: The church teachings interpret these passages differently though. The life of John is therefore comparable to Elijah.
But it is expressly not stated in your Bible that way. It says there, “Elijah
has already come”.
In the prophetic message I mentioned earlier with the title This Is My Word , however, it is also explained: It was not the spirit that was once incarnated in Elijah that was now also incorporated into John, “but the spirit of Elijah illuminated John. The being which was incarnated in John is a direct descendant ...” (loc. Cit., p. 56). In this prophecy the reincarnation is confirmed in principle, but with regard to the concrete situation it is explained that it was a different spirit being from what some suspected.
Incidentally, many Islamic scholars also believe in reincarnation and they say, among other things, that in Mary, the mother of Jesus, that soul was reincarnated, which was already among the people in Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron. However, these details are not that important and they may or may not be true.
The Journalist: Are there other references to reincarnation in the Bible?
The Theologian: Yes. In James of the Bible it is warned that our tongue can set the “wheel of birth” on fire (3:6; cf. Eccl. 12:6). The position can best be explained as follows: Bad words can cause such a “fire” that the spiritual arsonist has to reincarnate because of it to repair the damage.
The Journalist: Why does the Church keep silent about the wheel of birth being mentioned here in its own Bible?
That is a good question. In the Luther translation
from 1984, the Greek words “trochos tes geneseos” (= wheel of origin or wheel of
birth) is not translated at all and is instead given with three other words,
namely the whole world. According to the Luther Bible, the
tongue could set “the whole world” on fire – a monumental statement that one can
certainly think about, but nonetheless a straightforward Bible forgery.
If you compare the translation from 1984 with the translation in the Luther Bible from 1545, you will experience the next surprise: According to the original translation by Martin Luther from the 16th century, the tongue had lit “all of our change” – also a clear falsification, even if not quite as clumsy in comparison to the “whole world”. And “all our change” will be the motto for the next 400 years, including the Luther translation of 1956. In the so-called revision from 2017 then the next variant. Since then it has been called “the whole of life”.
Please note: In reality it says “wheel of emergence” or “wheel of birth”, the most obvious translation, since the image of the wheel of rebirth was known, a supposed “wheel of emergence” would only be an incomprehensible word construction. But for the authoritative Luther translation of 1984, the theologians authorized by the Church then further distorted the Bible text. “All of our changes” had now become “the whole world”. Not only was the Bible falsified here, but also the original Luther translation. And the translators authorized by the Church did it in such a way that the original facts are no longer even remotely recognizable.
In the Catholic standard
translation it says at this point at least “wheel of life” and maybe that's
why the Luther translators from 2017 have now used the word life here. This
formulation of the standard translation is closer to the original text.
But this translation is also wrong. Because it simply deletes the aspect of
“genesis”, that is, the “beginning of life” through birth, as can be clearly
read in the original Greek text in the word “geneseos” (= genitive of genesis).
In an explanatory footnote it becomes even more wrong – probably because it was
feared that the Bible readers could on their own – without theological
manipulation instructions – use the words “wheel of life” to find the trail to
the well-known “wheel of birth” and reincarnation which the Church obviously
wants to prevent. According to a footnote about this: “With ‘wheel of life’ (or:
‘circle of becoming’) the whole course of life and the periphery of human
existence is meant.” (Katholische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart 1980)
In this way, in the standard translation, the “wheel of birth” became the “circle of human existence” – a very good example of Bible forgery through translation with subsequent alleged expert interpretation. Because this translation has nothing to do with the Greek formulation in the original text. In the end, as with Martin Luther, there is a forgery of the facts, and this was also retained in the revision of this translation in 2016: “wheel of life”.
And in the commentary in the New Jerusalem Bible (2nd edition, Herder-Verlag, Freiburg 1985), which contains the text of the then common standard translation, the interpretation proposed there was adapted to the Luther translation of that time by adding: “The expression [wheel of life ] ... denotes the created world.”
Therefore, with all the confessional translation chaos, as a reminder: It is really about the wheel of birth, so the most obvious translation of “trochos tes geneseos”. But the clear biblical trace to the wheel of rebirth through reincarnation is simply removed by denominational theology through various alternating variants of biblical manipulation and falsification.
After all: In this biblical passage, James 3:6, everything can be proven very well. In countless other cases, this is unfortunately no longer so easily possible.
Even so, the evidence is enough to determine: Theologians have deliberately obscured biblical references to reincarnation, and some people therefore believe that the knowledge of the “wheel of birth” is not biblical-Christian, but has been adopted from Eastern religions.
The Journalist: What the example shows: Even small changes in the translation can mean that readers put a different meaning into the words. Is there an intention behind this? Your assumption, as you have already said, is that the traces of reincarnation should be covered.
Let us know what you think. What or who is behind the church? And who helps
consciously or unconsciously? I personally experienced these apparently “small”
changes in the truth when I left the Church as a former pastor. At that time,
one or the other former comrade-in-arms wanted to put me in a negative light
here and there. For this purpose, earlier statements were only “slightly”
changed by me afterwards and thus presented differently than they were intended.
With the example from the Letter of James one can at least check what Martin Luther and the standard translation have made of the source available to them. But what about the tradition from the first centuries after Christ, which no one can check today because the sources have been destroyed or are considered “no longer preserved”? How did church theologians who had a specific intention deal with tradition? What did they do when it wasn't in line with their teaching?
The Journalist: Are there any other traces of reincarnation or reembodiment in the Bible?
The Theologian: Perhaps the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisee Nicodemus (John 3:1-11) was about reincarnation. At least that is what the Aramaic researcher Günther Schwarz explains in the book Das Jesus-Evangelium (Munich 1993, p. 22f.). Dr. Schwarz researched the mother tongue of Jesus for about 30 years and initially translated the Greek words of Jesus back into Aramaic and from there again into German.
Further traces can also be found without such background considerations. For example, about the prophet Jeremiah, one prophetic statement in which God said to Jeremiah is: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)
The Journalist: It’s all absurd, that's how I see it. But this Christ hymn “He was divine and was born in the likeness of men” is not yet evidence of reincarnation.
The Theologian: But it is an appropriate clue about what happens during childbirth: A spirit nature or a soul “goes” or “slips” into a human body “inside” and begins to penetrate and accordingly shape this body. For the soul, the body is something like a vehicle with which it can move on planet Earth.
The Journalist: So Jesus and Jeremiah would have already accepted their commission in the hereafter. And then a body was created on Earth in which the spirit being or the soul is incarnated.
The Theologian: Yes. Whereby the Bible says
nothing about whether the spirit being that was incarnated in Jeremiah has
already been on Earth once or several times. It was not so with Christ.
There is also a clear reference to reincarnation in the biblical book Wisdom. The author says of himself there: “As a child I was well endowed ... and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body” (8:19-20). One can ask: When or where was the man “good”? And how “was” then, conversely, “someone”, whose body bears “spots” of suffering from birth? The whole context clearly points to reincarnation once more, as does another passage in the biblical book Wisdom.
According to the author, the wrong conviction of some people is described there with the words: "Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a man comes to his end, and no one has been know to return from Hades” (2:1) – according to the author of the book Wisdom his description of wrong thinking. Which thus is “correct thinking” according to the conviction of the book Wisdom? That there will be a return after all and that you will come back after all.
The book Wisdom is an integral part of the Catholic Bibles, in the Protestant Bibles it is again one of the “Apocrypha”.
The Journalist: You are addressing the so-called “canon” of the Bible, that is the content of this book as agreed by the Church. Are there other places on reincarnation in these Apocrypha outside the Bible?
The Theologian: Yes, for example in the Gospel of Thomas, which was found in 1945 by farmers plowing near Nag Hammadi on the Nile. This Gospel and other writings from the 1st and 2nd centuries were very likely part of a monastery library and had to be hidden by the monks there in the 4th century after it was labeled “heretical” by the Church and its possession was henceforth life-threatening for the owner. The Gospel of Thomas is now considered to be the best known gospel outside of the Bible. There it says: “Jesus said: Today, when you see your likeness, you rejoice. but when you see your pictures that have become before you, how much will you endure?” (v. 84)
The Journalist: Are these pictures so different from today’s picture?
It depends on what content from the soul shape our appearance today.
There may also be content that becomes active only at a later point in time or
in a later incarnation and also affects our appearance. This also changes
through certain life experiences.
But there are many more examples. In the already mentioned Gospel of the Pistis Sophia, Jesus speaks of a “cycle” (p. 239) or about “cycles of the replacements of the body” (p. 222) or “of a situation, where it does not become possible for a soul to go upward to the light and it must return for the replacement of the body”. (p. 239)
With reincarnation, according to Jesus, a human would be thrown back “again into the world, according to the kind of the sins, which he committed” (p. 186). The soul receives a body "which is adapted to the sins it has committed”. (p. 201)
In this context, Mary asks, for example, about a person who has “found no repentance”, “although he has completed his number of cycles in exchanging/replacing bodies”. (p. 227)
Behind this formulation is apparently the knowledge that reincarnations are not possible indefinitely. In the Kingdom of Peace that will one day arise on Earth – which the prophet Isaiah already spoke of [cf. Isaiah 11:6-9] – heavily burdened souls can no longer incarnate [see This is My Word, loc. Cit., p. 157]. And that could mean in concrete terms: Many of the people living on Earth today hardly have a chance for a new later incarnation. Because scientists are showing us in our time that the earth will soon be able to feed fewer and fewer people and that a major collapse is imminent. Many souls in the hereafter can no longer return to Earth.
However, in this example, Jesus explains that the soul of the person affected at the time, contrary to what Mary thought, may get the chance of a further incarnation in which human beings on Earth can find the way to the “kingdom of light” (p. 228). And it literally means: “With this soul, for which you will pray when it is in the dragon of utter darkness, it will pull its tail out of its mouth and release this soul.” Or also: Messengers “will bring it from all areas, wherever it is” (p. 229). But even if, according to this example, incarnation is no longer possible, messengers of light can at least “test” the soul and “lead” it “to the treasure of light” (p. 229). The knowledge of a possible reincarnation is always a prerequisite though.
The Journalist: These many statements from Jesus are unfortunately only known to a few people. Are there any further details?
The Theologian: For example, it is interesting to know that some souls can pay off their guilt in a single incarnation. Apparently this is what people thought who were called “Carpocrations” by their ecclesiastical opponents after a man named Carpocrates. Unfortunately, only the ridiculous report of Church Father Irenäus, their opponent, has been handed down, according to which they allegedly taught that one must commit all sorts of sins in one life in order not to have to reincarnate – precisely the opposite of the truth. According to the religious scholar G.R.S Mead, Irenäus’ allegations are “apparently based on a complete misunderstanding, if they did not simply arise from deliberate malice” (G.R.S Mead, Fragments of a Lost Faith, Berlin 1902, p. 190). Irenäus is also considered to be the forerunner of the later ecclesiastical Inquisition, which has millions of victims on its conscience, some of whom were cruelly tortured before their execution.
The Journalist: Were there already many such battles in the early days of so-called Christianity?
The Theologian: Yes. While the prophetic spirit in early Christianity was gradually silenced by the development of the official Church, the foundations of early Christian belief, such as the knowledge of reincarnation, also disappeared. For example, in 389 the great ancient library in Alexandria went up in flames. Catholic monks of the Egyptian or Coptic Church set the fire in the neighboring “pagan” Serapis temple and both the temple and the library burned down and with them valuable documents of early Christianity. As a response, the Church invented new doctrines. For example, it later developed a so-called doctrine of original sin, according to which every person inherited the sin from Adam, although the early Christians still knew that the soul takes its burdens from earlier lives on Earth with it into further lives. So no original sin. But burdens and influences from past life.
The Journalist: Is there any further evidence for this?
The Theologian: Yes. And it also made the early Christians merciful to their fellow people. Because it might be easy for you to let go of a certain bad attitude. Another one however has brought substantial load from past in this area into this earthly life and therefore is burdened heavier than his fellow human. Whoever knows this will not judge or condemn his neighbor, but will meet him with understanding, provided that he is honestly struggling to become a new person, even if it takes longer for him than for others.
At this point I would like to refer to another document as further evidence that the Church wanted to burn completely because it was too dangerous for them. These are the interpretations of the Gospels by Basilides, a man who lived in Alexandria in the first half of the second century and was regarded by the Catholic Church as a “Gnostic”, that is, a “heretic”. Apparently there was a connection between Basilides and the disciple of Jesus Matthew and, via a student of Peter, Glaucus, also to Peter (Zeitenschrift No. 9/1995). From the information outside the Bible, which could not be destroyed by the Church, it becomes clear that Basilides also knew something about reincarnation. G.R.S Mead writes: “People suffer, says Basilides, because of what they have committed in earlier courses of life” (loc. Cit., p. 226). Suffering does not come into the life of the individual through an “original sin” as must be believed instead in the churches.
The Journalist: Isn’t the doctrine of original sin also unjust?
The Theologian: What is it like if, according to this teaching, I have to live under this dark power as a child and possibly suffer, although I did not cause it at all? That is one of the “secrets mysteries of God” in the churches, and for this reason many are rightly in despair over this church god or clearly reject belief in such a god.
The Journalist: But weren’t there also individual statements of faith against a possible reincarnation in earlier times? In ecclesiastical writings, the biblical passage in Hebrews 9:27-28a is quoted very often: “And just as it is appointed for human beings to die once, and after that comes judgment; so Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many ...” This is how Martin Luther translated it. The word “once” is specially underlined by the Bible editors of the Luther translation.
The Theologian: See: If something is
underlined here by German translators that is not underlined in the original
text, then that already indicates that this sentence is not so easily
understandable; or that something is wrong with it. And so it is. There are many
traces of reincarnation in the Bible, which we just talked about. That is beyond
dispute. But nowhere does it say that there is no reincarnation, not even in
this sentence in Hebrews. But it is interpreted very inconsistently, and one of
these interpretations is that there is therefore no reincarnation.
I could happily say more about the different interpretations of this isolated passage, but I would like to warn every honest seeker of God against this: This is about church-typical intellectual subtleties.
[Editor's note: And if you do not want to “weigh down” your brain with this special topic, you should skip these explanations here in Chapter 2.10. and immediately continue reading in the next chapter 2.11.]
The Journalist: I would be interested in what is meant here. Is it now at least stated in this single passage in the Bible that there is no reincarnation, while there are otherwise several passages where, according to the Bible, reincarnation is referred to?
The Theologian: There is clearly and
definitely nothing here, but nothing at all against reincarnation. However, the
sentence in question in the Letter to the Hebrews is not clearly formulated and
therefore leaves room for speculation. We can take a closer look: There it says:
“And just as it is appointed for human beings to die once, and after that comes
judgment; so Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many ...”
If you want to get involved, let’s do a little experiment! Let’s say you are a regular Bible reader now and you don’t have a scholar by your side. What do you think the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews meant by this sentence construction? For example, how would you express it in your words?
The Journalist: I have to read again and delve into it. Jesus, that is always simple and clear! But Paul and the theologians, that is often something complicated and illogical. But I will think through this sentence once in order to be able to understand what might be meant (longer pause) ...
So: The underlining of the word “once” by the Lutheran translators is apparently intended to make the reader think that the point here is just to die once instead of twice or more. Without the underlining of this word by the German Bible Society, I would have thought of something else. I especially noticed the words “die” and “offered” in this sentence. I would have underlined these two words if someone had asked me and I wonder how they are related.
With this emphasis, the sentence sounds like this: “And just as it is appointed for human beings to die, and after that comes judgment; so Christ having been sacrificed once to bear the sins of many.”
I get it that the author made a little play on words here: Just as every person dies one day and then has to go to judgment, so, as an antipole, so to speak, Christ also died one day while He was sacrificed. In contrast to other people, however, He did not go to court, on the contrary, He had taken away sins, that is, incriminating material in court. Something like the comparison between a person and especially Christ. But I would never express myself like that. That all sounds very cerebral. Just like intellectuals write.
Yes, this is how this
complicated sentence is possibly meant, with Christ as the positive opposite
pole to sinful people. But even if one emphasizes the word “once” in this
sentence, as the German Bible Society suggests to the reader, it is therefore
not a sentence against reincarnation. It then means: Everyone has to die once,
and that is the end of this earthly life once and for all. One would be reminded
of that here. And “in judgment”, as it goes on, one reaps the consequences of
one’s actions in the hereafter. Unless – and now comes the theory of Hebrews,
and it goes as follows – Christ allegedly took away His sins once and for all
through His “sacrifice”.
That is what the writer would want to convey here, namely how he interprets the death of Jesus. We have already spoken about this doctrine of the Atonement in the Letter to the Hebrews, that it is a pagan idea of sacrifice to idols that was also used by scribes and priests in Judaism. The fact that Jesus was supposed to have been an atonement has nothing to do with Jesus, the Christ, who lived among us, as can be seen. And none of this has anything to do with reincarnation or non-reincarnation either. If the topic of reincarnation should be one of the topics here, then one could expect that the writer would write this in a normally understandable sentence and that he would not beat around the bush in a complicated half-sentence.
The Journalist: Now I understand better why you warned against intellectual subtlety at this point. It is made even more complicated by the fact that the Doctrine of Atonement discussed here does not appear to be correct. Can one go into that again briefly?
The Theologian: This doctrine of the Atonement, as it is claimed here, appears in the Bible only in this letter to the Hebrews or in rudiments in Paul. But, as I said, Jesus did not teach such things, and it has nothing to do with God either. Because the Creator-God does not need a human sacrifice to allegedly appease His anger, as is believed in murderous idolatry. And the Church doesn’t even know who wrote this letter to the Hebrews and who smuggled it into their Bible. Theological scholars generally agree that the letter got into the Bible only because some of the Church theologians of the time believed that Paul must be the author, which is now widely and rightly disputed. The letter owes its position either to fraud or to a false impression. So much for that.
The Journalist: And that with the wrong impression then also applies especially to this notorious and complicated sentence in Chapter 9, verse 27, which biblically fanatic people repeatedly cite as a pseudo-argument against reincarnation.
I would like to repeat it again: No normal person would talk like that. That is
why many theologians also assume a mutilation of the original sentence or a
later change and falsification of the letter. For example, the classical
philologist Hermann Bauer explains on the basis of a linguistic study that the
“probable original text” was quite different in the original Greek version
(Wiedergeburt, Würzburg 1982, p. 66). But we don't need to go into detail
anymore. Ultimately, everything remains speculative and nobody needs to know.
But I would like to go into something else. That is the audacity of the church translators of the Bible, who repeatedly act as manipulations-jugglers. In this example we used the Luther translation as a basis, in which the German translators underlined a certain word that is not underlined in the original Greek text. That alone could be described as misleading if it were to give the normal Bible reader the impression that the emphasis was already part of the original Greek text. It is an even more serious manipulation = lie, however, when the church theologians simply “translate” something other than what can actually be read in their Bible – this is what happened at this point in the Protestant-Catholic standard translation. There Hebrew 9:27 is expressed with the words: “Just as people are destined to die a single time ...”
So. So now it is no longer “once”, but “single”. A word can always have several meanings, hence the many inconsistent and sometimes confusing interpretations of the Bible. Here, however, the church’s so-called translators simply falsify a word of the sentence, from “once” to “single”. This means that the text is no longer translated, but interpreted in the ecclesiastical sense and linguistically bent, twisted. And this is clearly a fake. Because the here standing Greek word “hapax” is translated not by “only a single time”. Rather, it means “once”, as it is also correctly given in the Luther translation in this case. The normal Bible reader does not know any of this. He thinks that even with the standard translation he has a translation and not a twist and reinterpretation. It is merely an interpretation by the Church, whose representatives are bound by its dogma, and I would like to add: linguistically verifiable a wrong interpretation.
And why, one could ask further? The reason is obvious: With this further manipulation of the Bible, the church forgers tried to target the original knowledge of reincarnation.
The Journalist: That is a lot of stuff, like the simple believer in the Bible is here at the mercy of the priests and scribes. This reminds me of the words of Jesus: “Woe to you, scribes!” So I now understand even better that every person should find God in his own heart by learning to love people, animals and all of God’s creation selflessly, and that he needs neither the Bible nor the Church nor theologians for this.
Therefore everyone should be vigilant if the Bible is dwelt upon a lot or dogmas
that are supposed to be believed.
Such outward appearances often cover up coldness of the heart and emotional
deficits. From my point of view, I no longer recommend the Bible to
anyone. Unless someone wants to read it on their own, then I say in a
general manner: “You can still find a lot of the truth in it. And if you do what
you have accepted from this truth for yourself, then afterward that is good.”
But as a reference work for the question of whether there is reincarnation, it is not suitable for someone who does not speak the ancient languages. I am thinking of the biblical passage in James 3:6, where the “wheel of birth” is boldly hushed up in the German translations. This example shows particularly well how priests and theologians adjust their Bibles as they see fit. And so does every community that believes in the Bible. Everyone tailors their own interpretations to suit the needs of the respective community. And in addition, there is always the fact that the guardians of the Bible do not adhere to it anyway, so that today, in view of 1700 years of church history with murder, manslaughter and lies, I no longer have any qualms about saying: Away with your Bible, away with it! What did it bring? Church history points it out.
I also notice that I’m still a bit confused by all this interpretation
chaos. But I also have a thought on that.
I am just rereading the sentence in Hebrews 9:27, and perhaps my final thought is this: Even if the Bible author had meant “to die once” in the sense of “to die a single time”, as the standard translation incorrectly translates it, then that would not be a statement against reincarnation! Because a certain person XY actually only has to die “once” or “a single time”. And when you die, the immortal soul leaves this human body, and this human body has actually died once and for all. But it goes on for the soul, according to the original knowledge of humankind of an immortal soul. And if the soul should one day be incarnated again in another human body, then this person XY has to die again “once”, “a single time” or “once and for all”.
But this does not make a statement about the immortal soul and reincarnation! And “if people are appointed to die once” or, for my part, “to die a single time”, as the Church bends it, then that is completely independent of whether the soul is once, twice, at all not or many times incarnated in a new human body. Which dies in each case “once and for all”, are nevertheless in each case individual humans of flesh and blood. However, his soul is immortal. Could you look at it all that way?
Yes, that is also
logical. The whole theoretical bickering about this passage from the Bible
Hebrews 9:27 is, if you look closely, superfluous humbug. But what it aims
to do is to anchor a lie. The wrong message is supposed to stick with the simple
“church sheep”, in the Bible reincarnation is supposedly contradicted.
However, the whole chaos can also help some who have dealt with it more closely, as they then see for themselves what is being spun around here around unclear words. It’s all just speculations by church theologians who, with their limited intellect, have messed up a lot in this world and who are also responsible for this chaos. One can merely advise every honest seeker of God not to waste his energy on Bible speculation. Is it in there or is it not in there? And is it meant that way or not meant that way? What is it ultimately about? The truth is simple, and sometimes much easier to find outside of the Bible. Only the concealment, the cover-up and the lie are complicated and can be accordingly unveiled, uncovered and exposed.
I regard the controversy over this passage as a nuisance on the whole. But it also clearly shows the following, and that in turn serves to expose: What should not be for the Church, such as the possibility of reincarnation, must not be. For this, arguments are cleverly constructed or are far-fetched and of course their Bibles are bent accordingly. And the nuisance also consists in the fact that all of this is still done at the expense of the state, the entire Catholic and Protestant Bible study, not at church expense, that is, but from our taxpayers’ money.
The Journalist: In summary one could perhaps say: This Bible verse, which is particularly popular in the Church, about people who “die once” is not a document against the original knowledge of reincarnation.
The Theologian: And in its ambiguity it also exemplifies how unclear and confusing the Bible as a whole is – especially because the letters of the scribe Paul and his students have been elevated to the 100% word of God, as the mainstream churches do. But that, too, is another exposure: If the church defines the words of Paul 100% as “words of God”, then it is consequently Paul who is the God of the Church. Jesus, the Free Spirit, did not write down any such biblical alleged “words of God” as Paul did, and He did not announce them either.
The Journalist: Let’s come to another topic. A question that concerns many people: How is it with the suffering of children? I consider cynical the Church doctrine that this is due to original sin and a mystery of God. Consistently thought through to the end, the early Christian doctrine of reincarnation would also give a conclusive answer to this. The suffering of children would then also have its roots in previous lives.
The Theologian: Specifically: How would it for example be with a child, who comes handicapped into the world? According to Church doctrine, God would have created this child “handicapped”, whereby the handicapped form of his body would correspond to the “substance” of his soul, which God had created in this way. So the again outrageous teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the relationship between body and soul according to the reference book of Neuner-Roos, No. 203. So God would have recreated a handicapped soul. Another child, on the other hand, would have created God “healthy”. “What kind of god is that?” one could ask here again.
Jesus and His followers also talk
about this topic once. An example of this can be found in the Bible, in the
Gospel of John, Chapter 9:1-2. The passage proves that the disciples of
Jesus also naturally presuppose reincarnation. There it says:
“As he passed by,
he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, Master, who sinned,
this man or his parents that he was born blind?”
If a man born blind bears this fate because he has sinned beforehand, then one clearly assumes a past life and a reincarnation. According to John, the answer that Jesus gives then does not focus attention on previous life, but on something else. Accordingly, Jesus says that neither he nor his parents have sinned, “but that the works of God might be displayed in him” (v. 3). So are there other possible causes? Was the soul of this person possibly ready for other reasons to voluntarily accept this fate on Earth? Did he perhaps know that the later healing would glorify the “works of God” and make people aware of Jesus the Christ?
In the book This Is My Word, the words of Jesus are passed on somewhat differently than in the Bible. There it says: "What does it matter whether this one or his parents sinned, as long as the works of God become manifest in him?” And Christ then explains through prophetic word as follows: “You should not look at the sin nor ask who has sinned. None can pay off the debt of another – unless he came into this world as a soul which chose to bear the suffering of another. However, when people are bound to one another through sin, then all, for example, parents and child, share in the sin.” (This Is My Word, a.a.O., p. 610 f.)
So reincarnation is not made the main theme here, while this knowledge is obscured in the biblical version of the passage. However, even in this version of the Bible nothing is said against reincarnation.
Both versions have in common: Jesus does not satisfy the disciples’ curiosity, and He urges them not to worry about the “karma” of others. “The works of God be made manifest”, that is what it is all about.
The Journalist: What is meant with “enduring soul”?
The Theologian: Here one soul helps the other in bearing or enduring a soul debt. This word of Christ also makes it clear that the possibilities in the “law of sowing and reaping” are manifold.
The Journalist: Jesus healed the man born blind here. Most people do not experience such so-called miracles though.
Even if most people do not have such experiences, the knowledge of the spiritual
laws can help them.
One example: A blind woman I knew struggled for years as a teenager and looked for an explanation that she of all people was blind. With her trained mind, she also asked about the logic in it. When she first heard about reincarnation, it was like a liberation for her. She learned to accept, understand, and master her fate.
And who knows, what tomorrow will be? The person who was healed in the story was blind for a very long time until he was finally healed.
The Journalist: The doctrine of sowing and reaping and of reincarnations also appears more logical than the doctrine of an unpredictable and arbitrary fate or of an allegedly “mysterious” god.
It is true that no one can prove his understanding of God and fate to another.
But for what did we receive a healthy human understanding in the cradle? And why
did Pope Jorge Bergoglio warn in 2013 of all things against this divine gift of
Above all, however, the consequences that someone draws from a certain belief are important.
Therefore, once again for clarification: It is not in accordance with the Christian faith if an outsider speculates about the past life of his fellow human beings out of personal interest. As a Christian, he is given the task of empathizing with his neighbor and his need, of standing by and helping him in his situation. Jesus of Nazareth and the true prophets of God are the best role models. The spirit beings incarnated in them were on this Earth solely for that reason.
The willingness to be there for other people is of course even more important to children who are not yet able to help themselves so well. Or think of children who lost their parents, perhaps in a third world disaster area. First and foremost, a Christian develops compassion, and he knows about God’s infinite love, which is the same for all people without distinction. One could also say: God always intervenes with love, and He works many times on Earth through God-conscious people who do His will. Although He could also, to put it simply, eradicate evil on Earth through His omnipotence word, but without insight into their own misconduct or without remorse for a committed crime and the corresponding repentance, the perpetrators would sooner or later take the “liberty” to do the same evil deeds again, and the horror would start all over again. So every person and every soul must repent of their own free will. And as long as they do not do that, they keep creating new negative causes and are thus subject to the same effects in the law of sowing and reaping until they change their direction of life.
And as far as the children are concerned, I also have a question: Could it not be that a soul that is perhaps already very mature and close to God because it has already developed a great deal of selfless love, decides to incarnate again in a child whose body dies soon after its birth? In a short time, the soul can possibly remove its remaining burden and the soul incarnated in the child can then freely return to the heavenly worlds. That is a consideration first. But what a consolation this could be for desperate and grieving parents whose child has died! Instead, the pastor tells them that it is a mystery of God and he then often cements a lifelong mental suffering of the parents because they cannot fathom this alleged mystery.
The Journalist: How is it in the Biblical narration of Job? There is no mention of reincarnation, of “sowing and reaping” or of a “enduring soul”. According to the Bible, Job suffers innocently and he wrestles with his fate.
The Theologian: The story in the Bible itself gives an answer to why he suffers. He may be attacked and tested by the darkness (chapters 1 and 2). It is similar as with Jesus of Nazareth. And this book is not about reincarnation.
The Journalist: Does he then suffer because of a divine commission, as we have already discussed with Jesus of Nazareth?
The Theologian:That is very likely. He is definitely referred to as a “servant” of God (e.g. Job 42:7), which indicates a commission. And right in the first verse of the book it says: He “was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (1:1). In the church doctrine he is therefore misused as a kind of “key witness” against the law of cause and effect.
The Journalist: And that’s why they say in the churches: If he avoided evil and still suffered blows of fate, then it shows that one has nothing to do with the other.
As they would like it to
be, in order to further unsettle people with their alleged secrets of God. In
the entire so-called Old Testament, however, the law of sowing and reaping
applies, in academic parlance one also sometimes says
"doing-experiencing-connection” (connection between deeds and consequences). Or,
to put it more simply, it is about causes and their effects. According to the
Church, this cosmic law does not seem to apply to Job. From this, many
theologians have derived their assertions that the consciousness of the people
in the other scriptures was not as developed as in the book of Job. And so there
was further speculation in this direction, for example with theories such as:
Where people believed in sowing and reaping, they would still have lived in
manageable, simpler contexts and would have received simple answers to their
questions. Job is then something like a harbinger of “modern times”, where
people are supposedly clever enough to question the law of sowing and reaping,
and the Book of Job is thus a kind of further development of the “Old Testament
faith” in terms of content.
But if one considers this theory more closely especially as it is found in the churches’ own Bible, then this is not correct. “99-times” is – symbolically spoken – the law of seed and harvest is in the Old Testament a clear matter, just once not. And in such a way it approximates also to reality: “99-times” are those connections clear, once apparently not. Job does not seem to suffer, like others, because of wrongdoing. He suffers from attacks designed to bring him down by turning against God. This is what it says in the Bibles, and that obviously corresponds to the truth, and it can also be easily explained with the help of the cosmic context. Whoever is on God’s side may be tested by “darkness”. Such situations have occurred again and again with real messengers of God and prophets of God, and that is why the one Job story in which this is explained once has place next to the “99” others. It is not a key witness against the other 99 examples, as the church confounders try with the help of the Job tradition.
The Journalist: Many theologians say, however, that some things in the Bible are fairytale-like, legends or can be understood only symbolically. And this often includes how, according to tradition, “Satan” negotiates this test of Job with God.
I also learned during my
studies that a “narrative framework” was subsequently placed around the “actual”
Job story, precisely with this content, the dialogue between Satan and God.
However, this so-called framework contains the conclusive explanation that the
following narrative is about a test of Job. If you now claim that this is just a
framework and that this is not original, but rather like a fairy tale and added
later, then you are merely trying to defend your false theories, which are
ultimately directed against your own Bible. So they want to keep their
theological speculations about an alleged “mystery of God” in the allegedly
“real” narrative. And of course that works only if you reject the clear
explanation that is in the Bibles themselves that it was a test.
Some other theologians also try to attribute Job’s suffering to social or political reasons, which of course one can ponder. Divine messengers were almost always slandered and persecuted in their respective social environment, mainly because they always spoke out against wars and the oppression of ordinary people by priests and authorities. Unfortunately, there are no surviving historical sources about this from Job. And in the biblical narrative the emphasis is on another place. There it says simply and clearly: Whoever decides to live according to God’s commandments may be tested by the powers of “darkness”.
The Journalist: This example shows once again how the interests of the theologian or the Bible reader can influence the interpretation. We have already talked about how interests can even be manipulated with translations. Are there more examples of this kind?
Yes. Some read from a certain passage in the Bible the opposite of
what another finds in it. Often exact reading is then sufficient, in order to
understand how it is really meant.
I would like to quote a sentence from Jesus of Nazareth on this. When Peter seriously injured a man from the high priesthood with the sword when Jesus was captured, Jesus heals the wound and admonishes Peter: “Put your sword in its sheath; for all who take up the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 2:52). This passage in the Protestant-Catholic standard translation is reproduced correctly.
With this, Jesus reminds Peter of the law of sowing and reaping: Whoever kills another will one day be killed with the sword according to the law of cause and effect – in this or in another life. So far. Unless, one could add, the offense has been cleared beforehand. But this further aspect is not mentioned here.
The theologian Martin Luther turns the sense of Jesus’ words however completely in the opposite and makes from it a “law of the sword”, an alleged request of Jesus to the state to handle this with the death penalty.
According to Luther, the word of
Jesus “should be understood as Gen. 9:6: ‘Whoever sheds the blood of a human
person’ etc. [his blood shall be shed by people] Without a doubt, Christ
refers to that passage with this word and wants to [re] introduce and confirm
that saying”, says Martin Luther. (Die weltliche Obrigkeit und die Grenzen
des Gehorsams, in: Luther Taschenausgabe, Volume 5, Berlin 1982, p. 112)
To justify his interpretation, Martin Luther gives the passage in the Gospel of Matthew in a completely different translation. In it, it is: “For whoever takes the sword, shall die by the sword.” What is correct now? “Will perish by the sword” or “Should perish by the sword”? It’s not the same thing, it’s something completely different.
If you take a closer look, the following situation arises: In the Greek original text there is the future tense, which is usually translated as “will perish”, as in German.
If “should” were the correct translation, this could be expressed better and more unambiguously using a Greek imperative. But it’s not there.
The same applies here too: Truth is simple. The lie – in this case – of the theologian Martin Luther is complicated and ultimately cruel.
The Journalist: Martin Luther even says that “without a doubt” should be understood as he interprets it, and he feels his interpretation also confirmed by the Old Testament.
Because there he reinterpreted or falsified the meaning in the same
way as in the New Testament. If you take a closer look here,
too, it turns out: In the Hebrew tense in Gen. 9:6 there are basically
two translation possibilities. The rarer of the two possibilities
is: The blood “may ... be shed”. For insiders: It would be the
Hebrew so-called “Jussiv” form as an expression of a wish. The obvious translation option,
however, is: The blood “will be shed”. Again for insiders: In Hebrew
there is “imperfect”, which in this language means above all that the process
has not yet been completed. One thing is certain: Here too, is
about sowing and reaping. This obvious translation is also
chosen in the standard scientific work for translations, the Hebrew and Aramaic
Short Dictionary by Wilhelm Gesenius (Berlin / Göttingen / Heidelberg
One last time for clarification for those interested in linguistics: The Hebrew “imperfect” form expresses the aspect of the unfinished, the permanent, the becoming. And that fits exactly here: At the moment of the murder, time begins to run according to the law of cause and effect. The effect is still “not completed”, but the cause, if it is not cleared, works “continuously” and “will” bring about the corresponding effect sooner or later. In this “not completed” state however lies the chance of regret, the request for forgiveness and reparation, so that perhaps this effect might still be turned away. It is important here that the murdered person’s soul, which lives on in the hereafter, forgives its murderer.
While the mode of operation of the law of sowing and reaping is laid out in the Hebrew text down to such intricacies, Martin Luther opts for the other possibility in the manner of his narrow-minded calls for violence and thus for a completely different meaning, and he carries his supposed translation to excess. From the deliberate “may be shed” he turns into a demanding “shall be shed”. But that is no longer the content of the Bible. This is Martin Luther, who interprets his excessive demands for the death penalty into this passage from the Bible. Just as Old Testament priests did before him, who derived their death sentences against countless people from these words.
The Journalist: So it is not insignificant which Bible one reads. Can you say: Bible is not the same as a Bible?
That’s right. But the Protestant-Catholic standard translation
twisted another passage decisively, which Luther once accurately reproduced. I
am thinking of the 5th commandment.
The fifth commandment is “You shall not kill.” (Exodus 20:13)
In the standard translation, however, it was changed in 1980 to “You shall not murder” – apparently to leave a loophole for exceptions, for example for countless church-permitted kills in war, for unparalleled bloodbaths, most recently in two large ones World Wars of the 20th century, also for killing animals billions of times.
The stronger word “murder” for “kill” could now also be expressed differently in the Hebrew language, but this leads too far at this point. The meaning is: Don't kill without exception. And it also applies here: The truth is simple, the supposed exception is complicated and brutally cruel.
In this case the forgery of the Bible in the new edition of 2016 was reversed after 36 years and many protests, and there, too, the 5th commandment is now again “You shall not kill.” However, a change of attitude did not take place as a result. Because people usually interpret it still in the sense of “You should not murder” and continue to hold the view of the above exceptions.
The Journalist: So translations of the Bible are sometimes forgeries.
The Theologian: Even Luther complained that it was “an arduous task to force the Hebrew storytellers to speak German. How do they resist, ... as if one were forcing a nightingale to give up its melodic song and imitate the cuckoo whose monotonous voice it detests.” (quoted from Pinchas Lapide, Ist die Bibel richtig übersetzt? Gütersloh 1986, p. 19)
But translations are not just about changed melodies. In addition, there are shifts in meaning due to traditions and translations, depending on the translator’s awareness. In addition, various writings were crudely forged by priests and theologians, who for example put their sacrifice regulations into God’s mouth cf. also Theologian No. 8 – How the Devil Raised Havoc in the Bible
The Journalist: How about the passage “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”?
This passage (Exodus 21:24) is a proof of the law of cause and
effect. That is, this law accounts for sooner or later accurately. But the Bible
passage was reinterpreted as a permission to retaliate and the content was thus
Incidentally, this theory of retribution is also rejected by Jewish scientists and interpreted in terms of compensation and reparation in the event of bodily harm. The well-known Jewish philosopher Martin Buber translates in this sense “eye replacement for eye; dentures for tooth”. (from Lapide, op. Cit., p. 68)
Martin Luther uses “should” instead of “will”: “Damage for damage, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; as he has hurt a person, so should be done to him ... but whoever kills a person, shall die” (Leviticus 24:19.20, Luther translation; cf. also Exodus 21, 12 ff.). He ends up here again with his death penalty demands.
The Journalist: Martin Luther demands death sentences and killings against numerous groups of the population, including people of different faiths, even if they are peaceful.
The Theologian: And he relies on his own Bible translations
or Bible forgeries [see
Theologian No. 3 – This is how Martin Luther speaks – this is how Jesus of
To put it simply, Luther calls for a “totalitarian” state, the so-called “kingdom to the left of God”. In addition, there should be a “kingdom at the right hand of God”, which is represented by the Church. There the “kingdom to the left” is dictated the ethics, that is, told what the politicians have to do. According to this doctrine, the church can “direct” the state, although state and church are outwardly separate. Luther also interpreted this doctrine of the state in the Bible. But that would be a topic for a separate edition of this journal.
If you decide on the most obvious and correct translation of the eye-for-eye-tooth-for-tooth position, you will also recognize the meaning here: There is no call to a state to kill, but here, too, reference is made to the law of sowing and reaping: “As he did harm, so will be done to him ... whoever kills a person, will be killed.” Without timely adjustment by asking for forgiveness and forgiveness, he “will” one day be killed – by the law of sowing and reaping. So everyone is always his own judge.
The Journalist: How did Jesus deal with the doctrine of sowing and reaping? If it is so clear, then one should find it again in the teaching of Jesus.
So it is. Jesus also teaches the law of sowing and reaping or, of
course, presupposes it in all his teachings. Just a few examples: In the Sermon on the Mount, as it
is handed down in the Gospel of Matthew, He says among other things:
“Judge not that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce, you
will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
When the sick are healed, Jesus points out the connection to the faith of the person concerned and says: “Your faith made you well” (Mark 5:34). The connection between healing and the forgiveness of sins is evident in Jesus. He first forgives sin to a paralyzed man. And then the way for physical healing is also free (Mark 2:1-12). And to another healed man he says: “See you are well; sin no more that nothing worse may happen to you.” (John 5:14)
The Journalist: So can one say that the disaster at Siloam was a hint, a warning for many survivors? And Jesus had given the interpretation right away?
Anyone was not affected by the misfortune could again make himself
aware of the “probation” that was given to him in order to orient his life again
according to the commandment of God and to sow good seeds in the “field of
In one of the parables, Jesus also compares His word with a seed that falls on different ground. Depending on the quality of the soil, be it a path, a rocky soil, be it thorns or good soil, so will the harvest. (e.g. Mark 4:1-20)
The initial conditions with the seed determine thus the harvest. Or spoken in another picture: The fruits of a tree correspond to the quality of the tree and its location. Jesus also points out in the Sermon on the Mount: “Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17-18)
The conclusion from it regarding humans is: “Thus, you will recognize them by their fruit.” (v. 20)
Good fruits, thus good harvests, point to an appropriate good tree and/or an appropriate good seed, bad fruits on a become bad tree and a bad seed. It’s that simple. The fruits point it out, and everyone can recognize the fruits.
The Journalist: Does not speak Jesus of the “fruits”, in order to decide genuine from wrong prophets?
The Theologian: It applies to prophets. But it also applies to every other person. What matters is not the knowledge someone has or the words they use. But what he does and what he puts into his doing. So an important question could always be: If I do this and that, what does my neighbor benefit from it?
The Journalist: And that is also a good mnemonic and final point on this topic. Thank you for the interview.
Anyone who would like to help finance costs for printing, mailing and Internet can transfer a contribution to the following account: Dieter Potzel, Account No. 200 58 08, Volksbank Main-Tauber, BLZ 673 900 00; Bank Identifier Code (BIC): GENODE61WTH, internBank-AccNr (IBAN): DE06 6739 0000 0002 0058 08; Purpose: Contribution to The Theologian; Many thanks!