Notes of Jesusideology

ENGLISH: The theology of the real Jesus - by a Sanatiago pilgrim - judge for yourself!

God also writes straight on crooked lines: Through opponents of faith to the real Jesus.

The real Jesus was probably more of a typical investigative journalist (as we would say today) - and also had to die because of that. Afterwards, he was perfectly falsified, so to speak, by his opponents.

There are quite a few critics of both the churches and the Christian faith in general who say that the whole Christian religion is empty fantasy, that it is therefore more or less fictitious, that it is basically lies and fraud.

These criticisms obviously bounce off the theologians and other representatives of the churches to a large extent or even to the greatest possible extent - they very often don't seem to take any notice of them and so they don't care about them either. They carry on as if everything they research and proclaim is on solid ground.

But I think that among these critics of Christian religion and church there are quite serious scientists who should definitely be taken seriously. Is it not perhaps even in keeping with a good faith in God to trust that something positive will come out of it for our faith and thus also for the Church if we engage with such critics who are to be taken seriously?

I am thinking here of three of them in particular:

1. Karlheinz Deschner (1924-2014), who after all studied theology, philosophy, literature and history - and also earned a doctorate. In his book "Der gefälschte Glaube - Die wahren Hintergründe der kirchlichen Lehren" (The Counterfeit Faith - The True Backgrounds of Church Teachings) he describes (as do others, by the way) that most of the contents of faith are plagiarisms from ancient non-Christian religions, such as the virgin birth or the procreation by a divine father, the sonship of God, the redeeming function of a son of God, the miracles, even the crucifixion of a god, the raising of the dead and the resurrection, the cult celebrations with bread and wine.

And here are three pictures to illustrate the thesis that most of the beliefs of our religion are plagiarisms:

The mosaic "Europe with Zeus dressed as a bull" is in the National Museum in Naples. I don't need to print a picture of the parallel story in the New Testament of the "Annunciation of Mary".

Isis in the form of a bird at the awakening of Osiris, who had perished in the battle against evil and then spent three days visiting the souls of the dead in the underworld - relief in the mortuary temple of Sethos I in Abydos (Egypt) - the story of the resurrection of Jesus is therefore nothing new.

The relief of the Ascension of Emperor Antonius Pius and his wife Faustina is in the Vatican Museums (I photographed the plaster cast in the Roman-Germanic Museum in Mainz). Again, you certainly know paintings of the Assumption of Jesus and even more so of Mary.

2. the Danish Indologist Christian Lindtner (1949 - 2020) with his professional knowledge of Greek and Latin and the ancient Indian languages Sanskrit and Pali. In his book "Secrets of Jesus Christ", Lindtner describes how the New Testament is obviously largely a plagiarism from ancient Indian Buddhist texts - "pimped up" with "inserts" from the mythologies typical in the West and also from Judaism. Lindtner explains this by saying that Buddhist monks wanted to create a Buddhism for the West, but they were only interested in the Buddhist philosophy and thus built this Buddhism into an (external) "framework" that was common in the West. The "Buddhist hero" in Buddhism for the West is therefore a Jesus invented by the Buddhists, and so Lindtner arrives at the quintessence "Jesus is Buddha". More about Christian Lindtner at (or easier to search by typing in google: "Christian Lindtner" and "Our Central Europe").

3. the Jewish-English Talmud scholar Hyam Maccoby (1924-2004), who was most recently a professor at the Centre for Jewish Studies at Leeds University. In his book "The Mythmaker", Maccoby takes on this "newcomer" Paul - and describes, among other things, how he transferred the "stories" and rites known to him from his childhood in Tarsus, a main centre of the sometimes bloody Attis and Adonis cult, to Jesus and thus created a completely new religion that has nothing or at least not much to do with the real Jesus. So just as Lindtner says "Jesus is Buddha", Maccoby would say - loosely based on Paul - "Jesus is Attis".

What these three critical scientists have found out would actually be the death blow for our Christian faith. After all, it revolves around the most important teachings that make up our faith.

But it is not the end of the day!

The decisive hint as to what Jesus was and what he was committed to and why he was killed so cruelly, I surprisingly got from a neighbour, a farmer, in the Knolleburekaff ("sugar beet farmers' village") west of Cologne (they grow even more than sugar beet) where I live. He had once rented out one of his flats in the converted "quarry" in the fields to a pimp, a professional in the demimonde, and had a conversation with him about his "field of business". And when he talked to me at some point, we came to the conclusion that the famous story of Jesus saving a sinner from stoning in the Gospel of John is clearly a story of punishment from the demimonde. For when does it ever happen that a woman is caught red-handed "doing such a thing" - and that there are two "catchers" who then run straight to court, knowing that this means the death penalty for the caught woman? That never happens anyway, unless something is deliberately arranged here. Jesus certainly knew all this. For he was - presumably from his earlier work as a house builder in a family construction group in the whole region - also friends with prostitutes and tax collectors (or rather tax collectors) and had certainly also talked to them about their problems. And from there he had learned, for example, how women were blackmailed into prostitution - according to the "two-witness procedure" of the story of the beautiful Susanna in the appendix of the Book of Daniel: "Either you have sex with us (which at that time meant entry into prostitution) or, if you refuse, then we will report you to the court and say that we caught you having sex with a young man, but he escaped, then you will be executed." So an attractive woman had only the choice of prostitution or death against such men - so no chance. And in the case of the sinner in John's Gospel, the situation was obviously somewhat different: she was certainly a prostitute and had somehow broken the rules of her "profession" - we don't know what that was, but it's not important - and was now to be punished for it. Perhaps she had concealed her correct earnings and not delivered them properly? Maybe she had also heard about Jesus' speeches and wanted to leave her profession? For this, her "protectors" (or pimps) had arranged it so that she was caught having sex with a suitor (it was an arranged story, so the suitor was able to escape unrecognised) and should therefore be punished - especially as a warning for "the other women of the protectors" so that they would not do such nonsense as well ...

If I interpret the painting "Jesus and the Sinner" correctly, the painter Luke Cranach the Elder had the same view of the narrative in John's Gospel as I do, that is, that it is a criminal story. I don't think you can paint it any clearer if you think the would-be stoners are criminals, at least they don't look like stuffy moralisers. And the two "wise older gentlemen" at the back on the right are the typical high-minded theologians and philosophers (and probably also most journalists) who always only see the surface and don't (want to) know what is really going on. In this way, the criminals can go on doing whatever and however they want. A fascinating picture! I already know why I had this painted for me in Vietnam!

Now Jesus had witnessed this brutal behaviour - and denounced it in public speeches: "Against sin, against hypocrites, for love". So he had taken on the obviously very powerful demimonde, we would say "mafia" today. So he had to die for that.

So Jesus was not a founder of religion as the NT describes him, but something like an investigative journalist like the investigative journalists Peter R. de Vries (Netherlands), Ján Kuciak and his bride Martina Kusnirova (Slovakia), Daphne Caruana Galizia (Malta) and Jamal Khashoggi (Saudi Arabia) in our time. So he had found out about the criminal machinations in connection with prostitution and money (the typical business fields of the mafia, the functionaries of the authorities participated or looked the other way) "on the spot" and then, in the absence of today's usual media, made this public in public speeches - which later became more or less pious sermons, which hurt no one.

So how did the "plagiarised New Testament" come about? The matter is actually quite simple, once you have come up with the idea of the demimonde against which Jesus had committed himself. For with the death of Jesus, Jesus' ideas had of course not also died, he had spoken publicly long enough and so he also had followers. And after his death, some of them began to continue in his spirit. The opponents of Jesus did not like that at all. But how should they go about it? We know a similar problem today with deleting files on hard drives in computers. If you delete them with a click on the "delete" function, the content is of course still there, but you can no longer find it. But there are programmes to find them again. Something is only really deleted when the content to be deleted is overwritten with new content. And that's how it was with Jesus' commitment - that's why it was overwritten with a "new content" - that is, with a concept from all these plagiarisms from other religions that we know today as the "New Testament". So the New Testament is not an advertising and edification writing FOR the real Jesus, but a propaganda work AGAINST the real Jesus!

And this "newcomer" Paul obviously played a leading role in this deleting and re-writing, because he came up with the idea of making Jesus' death on the cross a sacrificial death wanted by himself - for the redemption of mankind from whatever....

This also means that the three critics of our religion quoted at the beginning of this article are completely right in their criticism - only the solution to the problem might look somewhat different from what they had imagined.

You can find more details on this and above all what the discovery of the real Jesus means for us today on the internet under "Jesus ideology" in the website - also in several languages (translated with the currently best translation programme

But I can already hear the critics saying: Assuming that the sin story from John 8 is indeed a half-world punishment story, it is therefore an indication of the real Jesus. But how can one throw the whole traditional theology overboard on the basis of a single piece of circumstantial evidence? I can only say that in an unclear case, and the case of Jesus is really extremely unclear - no one knows who wrote the New Testament (in any case it was not Jesus' disciples or others who had experienced Jesus personally), why it was written and how it was brought "among the people" - one can very well reconstruct a case perfectly from a single good piece of circumstantial evidence!

And above all: With the return to the commitment of the real Jesus - i.e. to a "Jesus ideology" - our religion would of course look completely different, it would no longer be a religion of priests and scholars, a religion of dogma and faith, and thus also no longer a religion of power and domination, whose main goals are forgiveness and comfort in life after death, but a highly ethical attitude towards life with reasonable rules of the game. And these reasonable rules would be such that everyone could accept them, especially with regard to sexual morality. However, they would have to be taught them from childhood. By "everyone" I also mean the Muslims - according to my experience as a teacher, it is precisely their girls who are most interested. We can't reach the "old people" anyway - but we can reach the youth! Of course, it is difficult for us to reach them in general, but if we win over our young Christian people, then word will get around - and especially in our internet age - also among the Muslim young people!

And here is something from the reality of life today: how instead of a downright idiotic gendering of language, women and girls can really be upgraded.

Actually, enough has been said about the problem of gendering: This re-modelling is, after all, a completely nonsensical and utterly superfluous and often even ridiculous bastardisation of the German language. It is supposed to bring about (like the magic word abracadabra) more gender justice and thus a further upgrading of women. But the experience is that this simply does not work with such a "magic word language", a language simply cannot achieve such an upgrading - because it is always the other way round: a changed reality causes - if it is necessary at all - a change in the language. So we have to take care of changing reality in a different way!

And with gendering, once again a new pig is being herded through the village - with the aim of ensuring that everything remains the same as far as what is actually important and what needs to be changed is concerned!

What I mean is perhaps best expressed in a conversation with the mother of a pupil that I had relatively soon after the beginning of my "career" as a teacher at a vocational school on the occasion of a parent-teacher conference: Many years ago, she had asked me at a parent-teacher conference about the aim of my religious education. I replied, rather flippantly: "The girls are all kind of schizophrenic. She: "???" Me: "Well, they are panic-stricken about the harmless and paradisiacal, where they could also pick up a useful knowledge of human nature and inspire men who want to be all right with a beautiful morality, namely "naked on the beach". But the problematic, namely sex with all too often questionable partners, which sometimes also causes them lifelong trauma, that's what they want and do." "And," said the mother, "what do you want to do now?" Me: "That the girls each do the other." The mother: "If you can do that, you are good!"

Yes what is actually happening here?

The thing is that we humans are by nature highly moral beings, especially in sexual matters - and that from our youth onwards, especially the girls. And since they are not taught any explicit morals - they have been given their brains by nature for that too - they adopt the morals that are common in their society, and that is the pseudo-morality of hostility towards the body, so they learn from childhood to be ashamed of their bodies. Because especially the parts that distinguish them from the opposite sex are obviously something that one prefers not to show to others, which means that they must be something evil.

Hence the shame! But life goes on - and at some point the opposite sex is also of interest. Actually, it would be quite enough for young people, who are always in a kind of "courtship phase" to find the right partner for them, to see and show - in other words, a completely harmless game to get to know each other. But this is not possible - such harmless behaviour is made impossible by education to body hostility or even shame. For the liberation from shame would be a prostitute custom - and one is not a prostitute and does not want to be one. Because that would contradict high morals ...

So what to do? Since sexual intercourse has to happen one day anyway, and since, as everyone says, it doesn't work out well with everyone, the girls say to themselves: "Then let's do it! After all, sexual intercourse is part of sexual self-determination and a sign of successful emancipation. And everyone talks about it being completely normal and even necessary - also as a sign that you are healthy. So they start it - and often with partners who are actually unfit - as was the topic of the conversation with the mother.

But this twisting of morals, what is actually harmless fun and something completely natural (if one would only do it right) and what is not so harmless, and what should or should not be done by young people, depending on the situation, is turning sexual morality upside down in our civilisations. At the time of Jesus, girls and young women with a high level of criminal energy were dissuaded from their naturally high morals by downright criminal methods - today they are programmed with indifference and lack of empathy through manipulation to a pseudo-morality. To set something right here - starting with young people - and to get involved, that would be the task of a religion - after the Jesus ideology. This would lead to successful sexual self-determination and real emancipation, especially for girls and thus for women later in life - if, on the one hand, they overcome their hostility towards the body and, on the other hand, only have sexual intercourse where it belongs by nature, namely in the family (because children can be born in the process - and children do belong in a family)!

And as for shame, that only comes from the fact that we don't live our natural morality - which is monogamous. And if we were to live that, shame would automatically disappear, so to speak. The way to achieve this natural morality is to make the girls more cunning in this sense!

One of the ideals of Lukas Cranach the Elder, who was both a painter and a humanist, was that morality and nudity belong together, indeed that perhaps true morality is only possible if it is also combined with nudity (only ever where it fits, of course). A very fine example of this combination is the portrayal of the Roman citizen Lucretia, even if her fate was a sad one. She had been raped and suffered so much from this terrible experience, which she herself was innocent of, but which she no longer wanted to live with - that she killed herself. She was therefore considered by the Romans to be the epitome of morality. And it was in this sense that Lucas Cranach the Elder painted her.

But in view of this grandiose manipulation, the vergendering nonsense is also a perfect red herring. More on this at , especially the online book "Jesusideologie".

Michael Preuschoff, Dipl.-Theol. and retired vocational school religion teacher.