The story of Jesus´ resurrection of Jesus is a fraud

Interview project: Paul was something of a "covert investigator" of Jesus' enemies. As such, he invented the story of Jesus' resurrection. In doing so, he made Jesus' concern for a grandiose ethic of relationships between men and women a faith in the style of common religions.

The Damascus experience was a trick of Paul. Why and how cleverly the memory of the commitment of the real Jesus should be erased after the "brutal crucifixion method" did not work.

The fact that the Resurrection of Jesus is an invention of Paul's "newcomer" (to call him so) is no longer a secret among theologians, nor is it any secret that he is the actual founder of Christianity and that this Christianity he created has nothing or almost nothing to do with the real Jesus. The question, however, has always remained open, WHY Paul invented such a resurrection and such a new faith. I think that I have come across very plausible and well-founded connections here, which also explain the horribly cruel torture death of Jesus.

And to me: I am Dipl.-Theol. and was a vocational school religious teacher for 30 years. I have been retired for 15 years, but I continue to work on a solution to the problem of what the worldview that Jesus wanted should be. At least so much is clear that he was not concerned with a religion, but with a way of life. And I think that if we do not return to a meaningful ethical attitude to life, as the real Jesus wanted, then we run the risk that Europe will eventually become Islamic after all.

I think I also have very good sources. I came to my conclusion, particularly through "The Mythsmaker" of the Anglo-Jewish Talmudologist Hyam Maccoby on Paul and through the research of the Danish Indologist Christian Lindtner to parallels of the New Testament with Buddhist texts that are so clear that the New Testament is obviously a plagiarism of these texts (see www.jesusisbuddha.com). And there was also "a man of the people", namely a farmer from my neighborhood in a village near Cologne, who gave me the decisive tip: It is about the story from the New Testament (John 8), how Jesus saves the sinner from stoning, which all theologians carelessly pass by. He was able to clearly identify this narrative (thanks to his information from one of his tenants from the half-world milieu) as a criminal history of an unspoken prostitute and I think he is right here – and so the concern of Jesus must be understood completely differently than usual. More on this in "The Crime of Jesus".

Note to Maccoby: He found that there were bloody attiscults in Tarsus, Paul's home. Paul transferred these cults to Jesus, but now bloodless.

And here is the draft of the interview:

Interviewer: You say that faith in Jesus' resurrection began with Paul's Damascus experience. We have all heard of this experience. So Paul was initially an opponent of the followers of Jesus (they were only called "Christians" when Paul had convinced them of his view of Jesus) and had persecuted them - allegedly on behalf of the Jerusalem high priests. On the way to Damascus to the followers of Jesus there to arrest them and bring them to Jerusalem, the risen Jesus appeared to him - and so Paul had then converted to this risen Jesus. And you now say that Paul's hostile attitude towards the followers of Jesus has always been the same and that only Paul's tactics have changed. So this Damascus experience had neither really happened nor was it an hallucination, but was just a trick, i.e. an invention of Paul, to get into the followers of Jesus, and that nothing really happened here. So is Paul a lie and deceiver? Why should this Paul invent something like this?

Preuschoff: To erase the memory of Jesus' real commitment.

So if you accuse some people 2000 years ago and especially Paul of lying and cheating, isn't that a bit thick?

PR: I think it's naive and even stupid to think that an influential clique who manages to get their critics or public prosecutors out of the world by judicial murder is just so calm when they realize that there are still successors, who had heard his speeches when he was still alive, and who continue in his spirit. They can be trusted with any mess so that this does not happen - and especially an intelligent one under a religious coat. Then the opponents of Jesus, so to speak, smuggeled an agent of them into the
followers of Jesus in order to destroy the commitment of Jesus from within. And the priesthood was just fine.

INT: You mean that there was not only Judas, who was possibly an agent of the opposite side, but also Paul, so to speak, was introduced to the followers of Jesus as a "covert investigator"?

PR: Judas knew Jesus personally and was friends with him and broke his betrayal and killed himself. But Paul did not know Jesus personally and did everything cold. And presumably he had not only been given the task of persecuting the followers of Jesus, but also of wiping out their ideas. He then came up with the idea of ​​the "hidden investigators" mesh. We don't know, but something must have gone in that direction.

INT: But what was so bad about Jesus' commitment that he was put out of the way and that his ideas should also be eliminated? It wasn't all that bad that Jesus wanted. When we think of the miracles that he supposedly had done, and then the sermons that people believe in God and be good and hope for an afterlife, some things may sound very absurd, but so it wasn't something revolutionary that not only killed him for it, but also wanted to erase the memory of him.

 
PR: And Paul didn't just "investigate", he also managed to influence and change everything! You see, what you are saying is all the result of this Paul's influence. He did his job perfectly, namely to erase the memory of Jesus' real commitment. The best way to wipe this out was to cover up the memory of Jesus' commitment with a new story. He was so thorough that today we only know this new story and no longer the commitment of the real Jesus. We can no longer imagine the real commitment of Jesus. But Paul was not only a clever deceiver, he was also a brilliant founder of religion. And so he had, for example, reinterpreted the judicial murder of Jesus in a more or less voluntary sacrificial death of Jesus for salvation from eternal damnation in hell in a life after earthly death - as he also knew from the cult of the demigod Attis in his homeland Tarsus . The Jerusalem followers of Jesus, who still knew the real Jesus and his concern better, had never heard of the real Jesus and never lost distrust of Paul.

Well, go ahead and shoot what you think was the commitment of the real Jesus and what was so annoying at least for some.

PR: And is still annoying for many today. Jesus had simply ventured too far in his commitment "against sin, against the hypocrites, for love" and in doing so had confronted the half-world mafia.

How, there was already a half-world mafia back then?

We know from the Bible that there were prostitutes back then, even though prostitution was forbidden under the death penalty. And it is the same all over the world today: if something that has a great need, such as prostitution, is prohibited by the death penalty and still exists, then there must also be people who buffer the legal power, so that the responsible authorities are not looking closely. Of course there is also money and good relationships involved. And if all of this happens on a large scale, then there is a mafia that is responsible for something like this, in our case a half-world mafia. It is the same all over the world and so it was with absolute certainty at the time.

But isn't that all far-fetched? I have never heard of it, there is nothing in the Bible about such a mafia?

I think you only have to take a closer look in the Bible. I have to go into a little more detail here: Before preaching, in order to stick to the word "sermon", after everything that has been found out by recognized theologians, Jesus was a building contractor (it must have been his profession like that of his father, "carpenter" is a wrong translation of the Greek word "tékton") - in the whole region, so to speak "on assembly", so not idyllic at home near the family in a workshop. And as is the case with such work “in the field”, Jesus also got to know prostitutes after work, who the workers went to because they wanted to earn something. We don't know exactly what happened here between Jesus and the women, but at least Jesus was even friends with prostitutes and there should have been talks between him and the women, also why they pursued "such a profession". And Jesus had noticed how women and girls had been blackmailed outside of marriage, at least in the beginning, by abusing the laws on sexual intercourse at the time. According to these laws, women were convicted of adultery and were sentenced to death if they were caught red-handed by two witnesses. And now this law has been abused by brutal men according to the motto: "Either you have sex with us or we show you that we would have caught you having sex with a man who is not yours, then you will be stoned".
Now that the women saw no credible way out for others, they had no chance to defend themselves successfully (who would believe them if they told the court and otherwise that they had done nothing "in this direction" at all) ?) and wanted to live, they agreed to what the men wanted - and that was the beginning of their dubious "career" as a prostitute - in ever-increasing dependence on these "brutal men" (we would say "pimp" today).


Lukas Cranach d. Ä., Jesus und die sünderin

Jesus and the Sinner" by Lukas Cranach the Elder Ä. (1473-1552). I think it is clear that the painter did not paint a story of forgiveness here, but a story of punishment from the half-world milieu. The young woman is also extremely beautiful according to our criteria today. And if we look at the pictures that Cranach has painted, the woman looks like a prostitute in the other paintings, down to the last detail of her clothes and hairstyle. And the men who want to stone them really don't look like moral apostles, like men who want better morals, but more like criminals. And the two men on the top right? I think they look like typical educated citizens who have nothing to do with what's going on here.


But you have a blossoming imagination. The Bible doesn't say anything like that.

And how, you only have to read the story of the beautiful Susanna in the appendix of the book Daniel and the story of how Jesus saves the sinner at John 8 from a different perspective than the usual sex-free child that you are always taught. Anyway, what I came up with is far more likely than the stories of a virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and whatever else is in the Bible about Jesus.

So I think dealing with women like that must have been almost normal back then. There was a Roman occupation and the soldiers weren't allowed to get married until they were 35, so they needed prostitutes and not too few. And there were probably at least some men among the Jews who sometimes needed prostitutes. And in the way presented here, the "brutal men" came to the prostitutes. And if one of them wanted to get out of the car or did something else like that, then a "fresh-up-act-catch-up" was put in place, so that one of them was stoned, also as a warning for the other prostitutes. Such an episode is reported in John 8, usually a forgiveness story is made of it, but there is nothing about forgiveness.

INT:  I understand, that this Jesus had exposed and criminally denounced this criminal mess, "against sin, against the hypocrites, for real love", as you say, and with that he started to confuse the criminal and misogynistic system at that time and therefore had to he is gone. Understandable, and at that time there were still no free media that could have intervened here, here the Weinsteins and their peers still had their unlimited power. So it worked with false witnesses and false charges.

And the authorities have not only looked away here, they have also actively participated in the removal of this Jesus by taking the false accusations seriously and believing them and then sentencing him to death.

Well or not, that was back then. And what does that mean for us today?

At that time, women and girls were getting into sexual relationships without marriage, as it always began, primarily through extortion. And today this is done through manipulation.

So now I don't know where girls are manipulated into something like this. They start with it because they are emancipated - and that's a good thing.

I found a passage reading the biography of a prostitute by chance, in which she cited my website that she found on the Internet. And the woman had agreed with me that I would be someone who clearly says that the problem is that the girls are sent in the wrong direction with their morals and therefore start sexual relationships without marriage, and some of them do end up in prostitution.

Now I don't know where girls are sent with their morals in the wrong direction.

Really not? The manipulation is culture-related, so to speak, so it is not noticeable. So we all learn from our youth that sexual shame is the epitome of sexual morality, that we have to hide “certain parts of the body” at least from others. And so the young people and especially the girls are almost hysterical about the rules of shame. But there is no investigation, let alone scientific, that sexual shame has a real “moral nutritional value”, to put it this way. Education for shame is education for an empty phantom. Sexual relationships always start for completely different reasons, but never for the reason that girls in particular enjoyed nudity.
And the girls are not prepared for the real reasons, so start with them.

Is there really no research on what you call the "moral nutritional value of shame"?

At least I don't know any. There are even animal experiments that one for a mammal species - and this may also apply to humans, because we are also "mammals" - confuses typical or natural sexual behavior with clothing. In Geo 02/2015 on p. 128 there was a note that Canadian researchers had accidentally observed something strange in rats. Researchers had wanted to observe the sexual behavior of the rats and put different colored jackets on them to distinguish them. And at some point, researchers at the institute needed the same little animals again to research something different, the jackets had long since been removed and forgotten. And they observed that the rats had no "sexual appetite" at all. Only when they remembered the jackets and put them back on did the “sexual appetite” reappear.

And what did the researchers conclude from this?

The clothes acted as a fetish - and without this fetish, the natural sexual behavior for the animals was mixed up.

Does that mean that with us humans, too, clothes have a fetish function that confuses our natural sexual behavior? That would mean that we would always have to walk around naked to be sexually normal ... I think that's pretty absurd.

No, no, of course we don't have to go that far. It is enough if the hiding with clothes is no longer an “accessory” to people and if we are completely “without” where it makes sense. Just as it used to be normal in many places in the GDR in summer. However, we have to consider that clothing is a moral measure, so to speak - and if it is no longer there, then morality has to come from somewhere else. Man is a highly moral being, especially in sexual matters, and as such he needs a moral. And this morality must come from the spirit, that is, from an appropriate pedagogy.

However, it has been shown that so much good persuasion does not help here among young people. Once the young people want to have sexual experiences, nothing can stop them.

I think it would go too far to explain everything here. That's why I created my website - and I think I have put everything briefly and succinctly in the writing "Der Kriminalfall Jesus" and readers have also confirmed to me that everything is easy to read. For the problem of an upbringing, see also under "Upbringing or accompanying"

This means that sexual intercourse can only take place in marriage so that monogamy is guaranteed. But modern sex research says otherwise that humans are not monogamous by nature.

I also know this transfer of ape research to humans. But I think science doesn't agree on this. Yes, what if males have this view and therefore, like the monkey males, believe that they could “jump” on the “females” as they wish; just imagine what kind of trouble they'll get.

Or remember: if the monkeys are promiscuous, then they know no shame, which means that their promiscuity corresponds to their animal nature. But when people live this animal sexuality, they need shame. That means that animal sexuality is not our human sexuality.

So you don't think much of modern sex research?

It is exactly like that. Modern sex education in particular follows the maxim of a "naturalistic fallacy". That is, if everyone does something that is good and right. But this is not a serious science that does so. Because according to this maxim, Auschwitz and Treblinka would have been right and good - at least from the point of view of the guards, because that's what everyone did. You can tell from a comparison like this that modern sexology sometimes really messes up.

Isn't this equation “theories about monogamy” and “murdering people” a trivialization of what happened in Auschwitz?

I don't think so, of course, both are sometimes life and death, and terrible death. We should also think about it in the times of the Corona: Humanity has evolved for about 15 million years. And it can be assumed that epidemics such as Corona have repeatedly occurred during this time - and worse.  Since there was no modern medicine in the past that ensured survival for everyone at some point and even for those who did not behave in a meaningful way, those who acted meaningfully in terms of survival and did not become infected with others have always survived. And many dangerous epidemics are not only transmitted through problematic foods and poor hygiene, but also through the "special closeness" of people who are "unknown", and above all through the mucous membranes, ie through Sexual contacts. Then the strictly monogamous people (groups) survived and continued to multiply, who behaved themselves monogamous and placed value on getting partners who also behaved strictly monogamous. Hence the religions with rigorous food, hygiene and sexual morality regulations - depending on what was considered dangerous at the time. A strong magnet for people to each other was the spiritual-spiritual love that "lasts" forever. So it happened that we are probably predisposed to real monogamy by nature.

To come back to the resurrection, how would you see the problem today and try to solve it?

It is about a renewal of man in a higher morality without constraints by a mafia and without manipulation, it is something like a resurrection. And I think this renewal can also be very attractive for young people and can even be fun because it corresponds to their nature. I have described this in my website www.michael-preuschoff.de. Everyone can visit the website free of charge and without any registration.

If all of that is so easy with sexual morality, why don't religions do it, they are supposedly always so for morality?

Well, think a little! After all, religions are also business companies. And how are you doing the better business? If they teach their believers how to live a beautiful morality, or if their believers do not have such a beautiful morality and therefore often miss the life here and now more or less and they can then comfort them and give them hope for an better life after death? And the clinging to the shame looks so moral ...

It's not just capitalism, it's criminal.

You say that now.

INT: And what could the world look like that is your utopia?

I will show a beautiful ivory carving by the Belgian sculptor Charles Samuel. For me, the two dancers are not lovers, but rather people who simply live a high moral and enjoy life. They have internalized this morality so that they no longer have to hide their bodies. Again, I refer to the website www.michael-preuschoff.de, especially point 1 "The criminal case of Jesus".


Charles Samuel 1862 - 1938

Charles Samuel (1862-1938), Belgian school: "Dancing"

And something about nudity: According to the ideas of religions, two people of different sexes should come together and be lifelong loyal to each other, who must never have seen each other completely before they get together, i.e. before their marriage - because nudity is a sin. Such a morality cannot work! It simply contradicts a healthy human condition. And why is it then preached to young people by the religions and violations of it are denounced as sin? Quite simply: It is an instrument of domination: at some point people violate such morals and always do "everything" and then have problems with it and a guilty conscience (it will come at some point!). And then they are also afraid of not going to heaven after death, which the religions also preach. So the religions promise the forgiveness of a deity, which of course only really exists in the ancestral religion.
All of this is totally thrown overboard in this concept! Of course, you can now also throw bathing trunks and bikini overboard, but first you have to have a real moral of the spirit! That means, especially young people have to be able to talk to each other, they have to be wise, they have to have overcome the typical swimsuit morality. I think it is even the case that those young people who live the real monogamy in their lives and therefore do not want to have sex before marriage develop such an inner pressure that they automatically want to practice nudity, so to speak (of course only where it is possible) and have fun with it. And if you also train and control your body at the same time, as with this sculpture, wouldn't that be fantastic?
And what does the Bible say about it? According to the Bible, the inner compulsion to cover at least "certain parts of the body", i.e. shame, is an indication of a curse - read the Adam and Eve story more closely! And this curse becomes effective when we do not adhere to the rules of the game of real monogamy, and the people who do not adhere to these rules, fatally, pass it on to their descendants, who actually have nothing to do with this curse to have. But that also means that if we adhere to the rules of true monogamy that we only have one sexual partner in life and want to have one (except in the case of widowhood), we can overcome this curse.

INT: And that should work?

PR: I think that it should work just because it corresponds to our human nature. And a lot is possible here today that was previously unthinkable and therefore simply not possible - and still is not possible in many cultures today. Take a closer look: Until recently, children were not allowed to know anything about sexual intercourse. Because this knowledge was considered to be absolutely harmful early sexualization, which would rob the children of their childlike innocence and ultimately lead them to try out what they knew. So taboo on everything related to sexuality! The less the children know about it, the better for them! But there is something you have to tell the children so that they do not behave too stupidly and, through naive ignorance, attract and encourage any pedophile to perpetrate them. So they were told that with shame, and that shame violations are even a sin. Since even a child is naturally a highly moral being, and children also have an urge to be moral, this was of course very well received by the children, so they were ashamed to be naked. They also didn't want to commit a sin. In addition, what is there between the legs was considered disgusting anyway. So there was (and still is) uptightness and hostility but not real morality.

INT: But what's so bad about the kids being ashamed?

PR: The consequence of all of this is when the children get older: It is in our nature that the opposite sex is particularly interesting or will eventually become. And then something must be! After all, it cannot be reasonable to marry someone and to stay with someone who you have never really seen before. And since showing and seeing, which is completely harmless in and of itself, if you only do it right, is considered bad and is also sin, that is out of the question. The moral norms have been learned and internalized and you don't want to violate them. Yes, what is different from intercourse, because one day it has to be anyway, because that's the only way to have children. So you do it - and at the same time you can also try who you really enjoy, who is the right one, etc.

INT: But somehow young people have to find out who fits together?

PR: So it certainly doesn't work with sexual intercourse. Because we know from prostitution that somehow every penis fits into every vagina. So this sexual intercourse tester does not gain any knowledge at all. It really depends on whether orgasm works.

INT: Right. And it doesn't work with everyone. So test the orgasm without penetration? How does that work?

PR: Nature even gave us the opportunity here. Because all nerve cells that are responsible for orgasm in women are on the surface of their sexual organs. So what does not happen without penetration of orgasm, does not happen with penetration. So penetration is not necessary at all for "testing"! Gently touching each other is enough, that is, interlocking with one another in the event of skin contact such that the genitals are far apart. It is important that a girl can drop completely without fear.

INT: All well and good. But how should pedagogy work differently?

PR: Today eight-year-olds already know what sex is, so you could tell them “the right thing” right away. But nothing of the kind that is in it is in there. However, since everything related to sexual morality is somewhat questionable today, nothing is told in this direction, at least nothing so that the children know what it is about. So the “moral nutritional value” of education for shame is not questioned. It is talked about, also in our religions.
Therefore, the uptightness and enmity of the body remains that the young people cannot handle their bodies properly and that they still consider the joy of nudity to be something immoral. And when the young people embark on sexual adventures and thereby move away from the goal of monogamy, the "spiritual authorities" of all religions and cultures shrug their shoulders and say that this is the problem of our time and above all our weak human flesh (or original sin), against which there is nothing to be done.

INT: This is a frontal attack on religions, that would mean that they are ultimately to blame for all the sexual confusion.

PR: Except for the religion or better attitude to life, which presumably this Jesus wanted, who was also a man of practice as a craftsman.

INT: But of course it's kept secret. Instead, there is still this religion that Paul constructed.

PR: Of course, the “spiritual authorities” do not come to the conclusion that the failure of high morals is due to this system à la Paulus. The described method of education for shame is a complete distortion, which is not morality or also a pseudo morality and what is real morality. So we can say that while education for shame looks very moral, it is completely counterproductive to the goal of real monogamy morality. In this concept it should now be a question of the church coming back to the village and the real Jesus coming to the church and that the morality of real monogamy is expressly wanted! So the goal is for our children to learn not to do what is part of marriage (i.e., sexual intercourse) before marriage or with someone other than their spouse, but to do what can be a harmless and even heavenly pleasure if they do just do it right. At the same time, they can learn very well to recognize who suits them - by performing sophisticated dancing like in this picture. And if someone doesn't fit, then it's no problem to say "goodbye" and "goodbye", it was nothing!

INT: And what about the shame?

PR: Quite simply: aside from the fact that it only provides deceptive security, shame is a substitute morality that we need because we do not live up to the strict monogamy that we are supposed to. Incidentally, there was such "openness" in the early church when the baptisms were bare at baptism, but this openness was soon "forgotten".

INT: The problem is, of course, that most adults have never experienced anything like this and cannot imagine all of this, that it works and how nice a moral of real monogamy is and how good it is to live if you only is informed accordingly ...

PR: But you can do something about it!

And one more thing: I am used to my time as an active teacher that I am asked questions. I would like to keep this: Your readers can also ask me questions (via email). If there are too many, we will find a solution.


INT: Thank you for the interview.

Email: basistext§§§gmx.de

Michael Preuschoff

Telephone: 004915732398365

But at the very end something about "nudity and young people". Take a look at the website https://www.gutefrage.net/frage/mit-jungs-duschen#answer-228012406 to see how beautiful young people can discuss here - and sometimes behave very naturally! Also educate or accompany!

And since I don't get any reaction on the German side, I once translated this interview into other languages with google and posted it on the Internet.
Maybe Chinese and Indians and Africans are interested?