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.
That the resurrection of Jesus is an invention of the "addict" (to call him that for once) Paul is no longer a secret among theologians, nor that he is the actual founder of Christianity and that this Christianity created by him has nothing or almost nothing to do with the real Jesus. The question, however, has always remained open as to 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 terribly cruel death of Jesus in torture.
And about me: I have a degree in theology and was a vocational school religion teacher for 30 years. I have been retired for 15 years, but I am still trying to find a solution to the problem of what the worldview Jesus wanted should be. At least this much is clear, that he was not concerned with a religion, but with an attitude to life. And I think if we don't get back to a meaningful ethical approach to life like the real Jesus wanted, then we run the risk of Europe becoming Islamic after all at some point.
I think I also have very good sources. I came to my conclusion especially through the "mythmaker" of the English-Jewish Talmud scholar Hyam Maccoby on Paul and through the research of the Danish Indologist Christian Lindtner on 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 from the people", namely a farmer from my neighbourhood 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 the theologians carelessly pass by. He was able to clearly identify this narrative (thanks to information provided by one of his tenants from the demimonde) as the punishment story of an unruly prostitute, and I think he is right here - and so Jesus' concern must be understood in a completely different way than has been the case up to now. More on this in "The Criminal Case of Jesus".
has noted that there were bloody Attic cults in Tarsus,
These cults Paul transferred to Jesus, but now
And here is the draft of the interview:
Interviewer: You say that belief in the resurrection of Jesus began with Paul's Damascus experience. I think we have all heard about that experience. So Paul was at first an opponent of the followers of Jesus ("Christians" they were called only after Paul had convinced them of his view of Jesus) and had persecuted them - supposedly on behalf of the Jerusalem high priests. On his way to Damascus to arrest the Jesus-followers there and bring them to Jerusalem, the risen Jesus had appeared to him - and so Paul had then converted to this risen Jesus. And you now say that Paul's hostile attitude against the followers of Jesus was always the same and that only Paul's tactics changed. So this Damascus experience neither really happened nor was it a hallucination, but it was only a feint, that is, an invention of Paul to suck up to the followers of Jesus, and that in reality nothing happened here at all. So is Paul a liar and a deceiver? Why would this Paul invent something like that?
Preuschoff: To erase the memory of Jesus' real involvement.
So when you accuse some people 2000 years ago, and Paul in particular, of lying and deceiving, isn't that a bit thick?
I think it is naďve and even stupid to believe that an influential clique that succeeds in getting rid of its critic or even public accuser by judicial murder will simply rest easy when it realises that there are still followers who had heard his speeches while he was still alive and who continue in his spirit. They can be trusted with any mess, so that exactly that does not happen - and especially an intelligent one under a religious cloak. The opponents of Jesus have, so to speak, infiltrated an agent of theirs into the followers of Jesus in order to eliminate Jesus' commitment from within. And the priestly society was just fine with that.
So you mean there was not only Judas, who was possibly an agent of the opposing side, but Paul was also infiltrated, so to speak, as an "undercover agent" among the followers of Jesus?
In the process, Judas got to know Jesus personally and became friends with him and broke down because of his betrayal and killed himself. But Paul did not know Jesus personally and carried out his mission ice-coldly. And presumably he had not only been given the task of persecuting the followers of Jesus, but also of wiping out their ideas. In the process, he himself came up with the idea of the "undercover investigator" scam. We don't know, but something must have been going on in this direction.
But what was so bad about Jesus' involvement that he had to be eliminated and that his ideas should then also be eliminated? It wasn't all that bad what Jesus wanted. If we think of the miracles he supposedly performed, and then also the sermons that people should believe in God and be good and hope for life after death, some things may sound absurd, but it was not something so revolutionary that he was not only killed for it, but also that people wanted to erase his memory.
No no, it was about something completely different! We know from the Bible that there were prostitutes at that time, even though prostitution was forbidden under penalty of death. And it is the same all over the world today: If something like prostitution, for which there is a great need, is forbidden on pain of death and still exists, then there must be people who buffer the power of the law so that the responsible authorities do not look so closely. Of course, money and good connections are also involved. And if all this happens on a large scale, then there is a mafia that is responsible for such things, in our case a demimonde mafia. That's the case all over the world, and it was certainly the case back then.
all very far-fetched? I've never heard of it, there's
nothing in the
Bible about such a mafia?
I think you just have to take a closer look at the Bible and read between the lines. I have to elaborate a little: before he started preaching, to stick with the word "preaching", in reality his speeches were extremely critical of society, Jesus was a house builder, according to everything that has been discovered by recognised theologians. For that was probably the profession that his father Joseph had and which then also passed on to the Son. The word "carpenter" is a false translation of the Greek word "tékton". This mistranslation came from Martin Luther, who translated "tekton" as "carpenter", i.e. "worker with wood", because in his time all houses were made of wood. And from this, the impression arose that Joseph and Jesus had to do with wood, that they were perhaps even carpenters. But this impression is completely wrong, Joseph and Jesus and other brothers were, so to speak, "on assembly" in the whole region, not idyllically at home near the family in a workshop. And as it is with such work "in the field", Jesus also met prostitutes after work, who visited the workers because they wanted to earn something. We don't know what exactly happened between Jesus and the women, but after all, Jesus was friends with prostitutes and there must have been conversations between him and the women, also why they pursued "such a profession". And Jesus had witnessed how women and girls were literally blackmailed into having sexual intercourse outside of marriage, at least in the beginning, by abusing the laws of the time. For according to these laws, women were considered to be convicted of the offence of adultery and were punished by death if they were caught in the act by two witnesses. And now this law was abused by brutal men according to the motto: "Either you have sex with us or we will report you that we caught you having sex with a man who is not yours, then you will be stoned to death". So women had the choice between the death penalty and prostitution, because what the men demanded meant prostitution.
And absolutely criminal. But because the women saw no way out that was credible to others, they had no chance at all to successfully defend themselves - who would believe them when they told the court and others that they had done nothing at all "in that direction"? And since they now wanted to live, they agreed to what the men wanted - and that was then the beginning of their dubious "career" as prostitutes - in ever further dependence on these "brutal men" (we would say "pimps" today).
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 there's nothing about that in the Bible.
And how, you only have to read the story of the beautiful Susanna in the appendix of the Book of Daniel and the story of how Jesus saves the sinner in John 8 under a different aspect than the usual childish one purified of everything to do with sexuality that you are always taught. In any case, what I have come up with is infinitely more probable than the stories of a virgin birth, of miracles, of a resurrection and whatever else is written about Jesus in the Bible.
So I think such dealings with women must have been almost normal at that time. There was a Roman occupation and the soldiers were not allowed to marry until they were 35, so they needed prostitutes and not too few of them. And probably there were also men among the Jews, at least from time to time, who also "went" to 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 business or otherwise made a fuss, then a "catching of the act" was arranged, so that one of them was stoned to death, also as a warning for the other prostitutes. In John 8 such an episode is reported, usually a story of forgiveness is made out of it, but there is nothing at all about forgiveness.
According to what you say here, it must have looked very bad for normal women at that time, because they were helplessly at the mercy of such machinations. I can see that once the right people had them in their sights, they had no chance of leading a normal life.
And the authorities not only looked the other way, but they probably went along with it.
So this Jesus started to expose and publicly denounce these criminal messes and so he started to stir up the criminal misogynist system of the time. That's why he had to leave. Understandably, and at that time there was no free media that could have intervened, the Weinsteins and their ilk still had their unrestricted power. That's how it worked with false witnesses and false accusations.
That at least sounds plausible.
But there's more: when Jesus was removed from the scene, his ideas were still alive in many people's minds, because he had already spoken about them publicly. And at least some of these people wanted to continue in the spirit of Jesus' ideas.
And so Paul was infiltrated into these "followers of Jesus", or rather he infiltrated himself, in order to "investigate" and above all to prevent this continuation.
And Paul did not just "investigate", but he also managed to influence and change everything! In doing so, he really did his job perfectly, namely to erase the memory of Jesus' real involvement, so to speak, with the construction of a new religion that he had supposedly learned about through revelations directly from the resurrected Jesus. And so it then came to this largely late-antique syncretistic (= "mishmash of beliefs") mystery cult faith that we know today.
The many parallels to the ancient religions from East Asia to Rome, from Egypt to Germania have long been known.
Yes, of course, the virgin births, the sonships of God, the redeemer function, the miracles, the raising of the dead, the communion celebrations with bread and wine, the resurrections, the ascensions, the Three Kings stories and even the crucifixions with the sacrificial death ideology, these are all typical stories from the pagan mythologies. What coincidences that all these wondrous to sometimes "downright outlandish" stories are also told by Jesus or that they belong to Christian teachings. There are simply not that many coincidences! So here, obviously, a new "universal religion" has been deliberately constructed by whoever. But apart from the crucifixion, for which there are good arguments, it has nothing or at least not much to do with the real Jesus.
And you think that this Paul was so thorough in this that today we only know this new story and no longer the commitment of the real Jesus?
That's right. We can no longer even imagine the real commitment of Jesus. For Paul was not only a clever deceiver, but he was also a brilliant founder of religion.
So far, so understandable. I don't see what all this has to do with us today, it's none of our business. Women are certainly not blackmailed into prostitution - and certainly not with the threat of the death penalty.
We just do it differently - by manipulation! Just take a look at why the girls start having sex - which is often associated with downright frustration. The girls think that they want it themselves out of complete freedom, but they only want it themselves because they have always been taught false morals.
That is precisely the sign of their emancipation.
That's what they mean!
Once, while reading the biography of a prostitute, I came across a passage, purely by chance, in which she quoted my website, which she had found on the internet. And the woman had agreed with me that I was once someone who clearly said that the problem is that girls are sent in the wrong direction with their morals and therefore start having sexual relationships without marriage, and some end up in prostitution.
I don't see where girls are sent in the wrong direction with their morals.
Are they really not? The manipulation is, so to speak, culturally determined, so it doesn't stand out. We are all taught from our youth that sexual shame is the epitome of sexual morality, that we have to hide "certain body parts" at least from others. And so young people, and especially girls, adhere almost hysterically to the rules of shame. But there is no research, and certainly no scientific research, that sexual shame has any real "moral nutritional value", to put it that way. I was a religion teacher for 30 years in front of young people between 16 and 20 at a vocational school, and I never experienced that, for example, girls started having sex because they were naked on a beach where this openness is common. On the contrary, they were almost panic-stricken about such things, like "that's disgusting and immoral, we'll never do that!" But they did start having sex, and sometimes with men who were more like chance acquaintances. Education in shame is education in 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 they start with that.
Is there really no research on the "moral nutritional value of shame", as you call it?
At least I don't know of any. There are even animal studies that a sexual behaviour typical or even natural for a mammalian species - and this possibly also applies to humans, because we are also "mammals" - is upset by clothing. In Geo 02/2015 on p. 128 there was once a note that Canadian researchers had by chance observed something strange in rats. Researchers had wanted to observe sexual behaviour in rats and had put different coloured jackets on them to distinguish them. And at some point, researchers at the institute needed the same little animals again to do research on something else, and the jackets had long since been taken off 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 the animals did the "sexual appetite" return.
And what did the researchers conclude from this?
The clothing acted as a fetish - and without this fetish, the animals' natural sexual behaviour was confused.
Does this mean that clothing also has a fetish function for us humans, which confuses our natural sexual behaviour? That would mean that we would always have to walk around naked in order to be sexually normal ... I think that's pretty absurd.
No, no, we don't have to go that far, of course. It's quite enough if hiding clothes is no longer an absolute "accessory" to being human and if, where it makes sense, we are then also completely "without". Just as it used to be normal in many places in the GDR in summer. However, we have to bear in mind that clothing is, so to speak, a moral measure - and if that is no longer there, then morality has to come from somewhere else. Man is a highly moral being, also and especially in sexual matters, and as such he needs morals. And this morality must then come from the spirit, i.e. from a suitable pedagogy.
It has been shown, however, that no matter how much coaxing is done with young people, it does not help. Once young people want to have sexual experiences, nothing can stop them.
I think it would go too far to explain everything at this point. That's what I made my website for - and I think I have summarised everything succinctly, for example in the paper "Jesus Ideology", and readers have also confirmed to me that everything is easy to read. On the problem of education here, see also "Educating or accompanying".
This means that sexual intercourse may only take place in marriage, so that monogamy is guaranteed. But modern sexual research says something different here, that humans are not monogamous by nature at all.
I also know this transfer from ape research to humans. But I don't think science agrees on this at all. Yes, what if men have this view and therefore believe, like the male apes, that they can "jump" the "females" as they like; just imagine what kind of trouble they would get into then.
Or think about this: when monkeys are promiscuous, they know no shame, which means that their promiscuity is in keeping with their animal nature. But when humans live this animal sexuality, then they need the shame. Surely that means that animal sexuality is not also our human sexuality.
So you don't think much of modern sexual research?
That's exactly the way it is. Modern sex education in particular proceeds according to the maxim of a "naturalistic fallacy". That means that if everyone is doing something, then it is also good and right. But this is not a serious science that proceeds in this way. Because according to this maxim, Auschwitz and Treblinka would also have been right and good - at least from the point of view of the guards - because everyone did it that way. You can see from such a comparison that modern sexual science sometimes really does spout nonsense.
Isn't this equation of "theories about monogamy" and "murder of people" a trivialisation of what happened in Auschwitz?
I don't think so, of course; both are at times very much a matter of life and death, and horrible deaths too. We should also think about this in the times of the Corona: humanity has been developing for about 15 million years. And it can be assumed that such epidemics as Corona have occurred again and again during this time - and worse. Since there was no modern medicine in the past that ensured the survival of everyone at some point and even of those who did not behave sensibly, those who survived were always those who behaved sensibly in terms of survival and thus did not infect others. And many dangerous epidemics are transmitted not only through problematic food and poor hygiene, but also through the "special closeness" of people to each other, of whom "nothing more" is known, and especially through the mucous membranes, i.e. through sexual contact. This is where the strictly monogamous people (groups) survived and continued to multiply, who behaved monogamously themselves and attached importance to having partners who also behaved strictly monogamously. This is how religions came about 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 love that lasts "forever". This is how it came about that today we are probably predisposed by our nature to true monogamy.
To come back to the resurrection: How would you see the problem today and try to solve it?
This idea of resurrection in the form of continuing life after death in a distant heaven is all Pauline ideology and we can forget it. But what Jesus wanted is not about that at all. It is about a renewal of the human being in a higher morality without the constraints of a mafia and without manipulation, which is also something like a resurrection. And I think this renewal can be very attractive, especially for young people, and even be fun for them directly, because it corresponds to their nature.
If it's all so simple with sexual morality, why don't the religions do it that way, they are supposedly always so in favour of morality?
Well, think a little! Religions are all business enterprises. And where do they do the better business? When they teach their believers how to live a beautiful morality, or when their believers don't have such a beautiful morality and therefore often miss life here and now more or less and they can then comfort them and give them hope for a better life after death? And the clinging to shame looks so moral ...
That's not only capitalism, it's even criminal.
You say that now.
And what could the world look like that is your utopia?
show you a
beautiful ivory carving by the Belgian sculptor
Charles Samuel. For
me, the two dancing people are not a pair of
lovers, but people who
simply live high morals and have a zest for life.
In doing so, they
have internalised these morals to such an extent
that they no longer
need to hide their bodies. Again, I refer you to
www.michael-preuschoff.de, especially to point 1
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.
And that is supposed to work?
I think that should work simply because it corresponds to our human nature. And many things are possible here today that were unthinkable and therefore simply not possible in the past - and in many cultures, however, still not possible today. Just take a closer look: Until not long ago, children were not allowed to know anything about sexual intercourse. Because this knowledge was considered absolutely harmful early sexualisation, which would rob children of their childlike innocence and eventually tempt them to try out what they knew. So taboo about everything related to sexuality! The less the children know about it, the better for them! But you have to tell the children something so that they don't behave too stupidly and, through naďve ignorance, attract and incite some paedophiles to take advantage of them. So they were told about shame, and that violations of shame are even a sin. Since even a child is by nature a highly moral being, and children therefore also have a drive to be moral, this naturally went down very well with the children, so they were ashamed to be naked. Besides, they didn't want to commit a sin. Besides, what was between their legs was considered disgusting anyway. So there was (and still is) uptightness and hostility to life, but no real morality.
But what is so bad about children being ashamed?
The consequence of all this is when the children get older: It is in our nature that the opposite sex is highly interesting or will become so at some point. And something has to be done about it! After all, it can't be reasonable to marry someone you've never really seen "before" and want to stay with them for life. And since showing and seeing, which is completely harmless in itself, is considered something bad if you do it right, and is also a sin, it is out of the question. After all, one has learned and internalised the moral norms and does not want to violate them. So what else is there but sexual intercourse, because that has to happen one day anyway, because that's the only way to have children. So you do it - and at the same time you can try out with whom it's really fun, who's the right one, and so on.
But somehow young people have to find out who suits each other, don't they?
Well, 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 testing doesn't yield any knowledge at all. What matters is whether it works with the orgasm.
That's right. And it doesn't work with everyone. So testing orgasms without penetration? How is that supposed to work?
Nature has even given us the possibility. Because all the nerve cells that are responsible for orgasm in women are located on the surface of their sexual organs. So what doesn't happen with orgasm without penetration, doesn't happen with penetration either. So for "testing", penetration is not necessary at all! Light mutual touching is perfectly sufficient, i.e. interlocking with skin contact in such a way that the genitals are far away from each other. The important thing is that a girl can let herself go without fear.
All well and good. But how should a pedagogy for this be different?
Today, even eight-year-olds know what sex is, so you could tell them "the right thing" right away. But nothing like that, once it's in, it's in. However, since everything connected with sexual morality is somewhat questionable today, nothing is told in this direction, at least nothing so that the children know what it is all about. Thus, the "moral nutritional value" of education for shame is not questioned either. It is talked around, even in our religions. So that's why the uptightness and hostility towards the body remains, that young people can't deal sensibly with their bodies and that they still consider, for example, the pleasure of nudity to be something immoral. And when young people then plunge into sexual adventures and thus distance themselves 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 of our weak human flesh (or original sin), against which nothing can be done.
This is a frontal attack on religions, which would mean that they are ultimately to blame for the whole sexual mess.
With the exception of the religion, or better, the attitude to life, which presumably this Jesus wanted, who, as a craftsman, was also otherwise a man of practice.
But of course this is kept quiet. Instead, this religion that Paul constructed still exists today.
That the failure of high morality is due to this system á la Paul is, of course, not suggested by the "spiritual authorities". The described procedure of education to shame is a complete distortion of what is not morality or even a sham morality and what is real morality. So we can say that education for shame looks very moral, but it is completely counterproductive for the goal of a morality of real monogamy. This concept is now about the church coming back into the village and the real Jesus coming into the church and that the morality of real monogamy is explicitly wanted! So the aim is that our children learn not to do what belongs in marriage (i.e. sexual intercourse) before marriage or with anyone other than their spouse, but to do what can be a harmless and even paradisiacal pleasure, if only they do it properly. At the same time, they can also learn very well - by dancing at a high level, as in this picture - to recognise who suits them. And if someone doesn't fit, it's no problem to say "goodbye", it was nothing!
And what about shame?
Quite simply: shame, quite apart from the fact that it only provides a deceptive sense of security, is a substitute morality that we need because we do not live the strict monogamy that suits us. Incidentally, there was certainly such "openness" in the early church when the baptised were naked at baptism, but this openness was "forgotten" quite soon.
The problem is, of course, that most adults have never experienced anything like this and cannot even imagine that it is possible and how beautiful a morality of true monogamy is and how good it is to live it, if one is only informed accordingly ...
But something can be done about that!
And another thing: I am used to being asked questions from my time as an active teacher. I would like to keep this up: Your readers can also ask me questions (by e-mail). If there are too many, we will find a solution.
Thank you for the interview.
at the very end
something about "nudity and young people". Take a
see how beautifully young people can discuss
things here - and
sometimes behave very naturally! See also Educate
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? So here are the languages:
Anglicus/engl., Galli, Hispanica, Lusitani/port., Danica, Hungarian, Indonesiaca, Crovatica, Germanico, Turkish, Latina, Seres/chin., Iaponica, Arabica, Moravica/slowak., Persici, Polonia, Russian, Vietnamica, Graecae, Bulgarica, Hebrew, Ucraina, Fennica/finn., Italiae, Thai, Romanian, Prohibeo/Hindi, Coreanica, batavi/niederld., Norwegian, Esperanto, Singhalese, Cebuano, Swedish,