CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUIST: How St. Paul Engineered the Hoax that Shaped Our World
May 21

This is the first-ever legal/forensic analysis of the evidence regarding how Christianity started.



"Legal/forensic," simply put, is the methodology which is employed in courts of law in a democracy. A court presents to the jury not the largest quantity of evidence regarding a particular matter (as scholars are accustomed to doing via huge bibliographies and numerous footnotes), but instead the highest quality of evidence regarding any specific question. For example, DNA evidence trumps witness testimony, and that's why many people have been released from death rows after the advent of DNA testing. Similarly, the exclusionary rule is employed so as to winnow out evidentiary gold from evidentiary chaff so as to avoid contaminating jurors' judgment by less reliable "evidence" which prejudices rather than informs.

The difference between legal/forensic methods and other methods is the difference between history and myth. When innocent convicts are released from prisons after DNA analysis, the accounts of the crimes for which they had been convicted are publicly revealed to have been myth and not history. In cases where DNA evidence identified the true perpetrator of the crime, the myth became replaced by a new account of the crime — an account which offered, for the first time, a history and not a myth about that crime.

A legal/forensic exegesis of Paul's letter to the Galatians, and an associated legal/forensic analysis of the four canonical Gospels, finds that Christianity started in or around the year 49 CE in Antioch (present-day Antakya, Turkey) as a direct consequence of a personal conflict which had arisen, over the course of 17 years, between Paul and the leader of the Jewish sect which Jesus had begun. The sect's leader was not Peter, as the modern-day Christian myth asserts, but was instead Jesus' brother James. Peter was and remained a follower of James, and he died (as did the rest of the sect) as a member of the Jewish sect, not as a Christian — not as a member of the group which Paul started. Jesus' sect itself soon expired. What is today known as Christianity started with Paul, and was then developed by his followers, who wrote the canonical Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The religion of the New Testament has nothing to do with the person of the historical Jesus: The NT was written and assembled to fulfill Paul's Roman agenda, not Jesus' Jewish one.

Paul turned Jesus' corpse into his dummy, and thus became the voice of "Christ."


**** Click the Up ^ arrow key to vote to make this research available/published, to the general public Source




Original source Link.

Well, I'm certainly not going to donate anything...and I am not going to buy the book...so:

Without actually 'reading' the book...are there any excerpts that delve into what the 'methodology' used was. Forensic is a word that has a particular meaning. I would think that:

A. He could not possibly have gotten his hands on the original manuscripts...therefore....
B. He could not have done any 'forensic' testing of the manuscripts.

I though we couldn't put links to places that sell things. Thats spam.

You would be correct, we're not allowed to sell things. But then again, this is not selling anything.

Paul teaches 180 degrees the opposite of what Jesus taught. If I were a christian, I would have to tear out all the writings of Paul to make any sense of it.

If memory serves, wasn't Paul the disciple that jesus forewarned would deny him three times before the Kock crowed, on the day of his execution!?


Edited because the server insets**** for the proper bird spelling.

Nope..that was peter..Paul became a Christian after Jesus had been Crucified.

Ah, ok thank you. I know one was formerly named Peter and then his name became Paul, etc... It's been awhile since I read the gospels. Thank you again for your input.

LOl..no problem.... Peters former name was Simon...pauls former name was Saul....

Yep, been a looonnnng while since I read the gospels. Or , it could be that I'm bad with names, goes so far as in bible lore too. Yeah, that's it. Thanks for clearing it all up.

yea...all the name changes can get crazy!

Correct me if I am wrong, but after Peter and Paul got over their differences didn’t they get together with Mary and form a folk singing band?
The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind

I heard that too.

Crank that jukebox uuuup!

LOL.....u are correct Sir

I went googling (you're lucky I came back... there were 30,000 pages of results), and while I was out there I came across something which I ended up reading a fair bit of. It relates to the issue of Paul's dispute with the early Christian church on the application of Jewish Law to the Gentiles...

Clicky here...

It's a book... so I don't suppose everyone's going to read all of it... I haven't yet.

while we are being enlighten with the truths of the universe, do you know what happened to jimmy hoffa?

randomhit10

It's almost absurd to attempt to decipher who wrote what when, as there have been so many revisions/translations by so many people for so long.
I guess "debunking" the bible as a factual document is important to some people. Personally, I don't think that changes the intent and spirit of the average Euro-Christian trying to follow the teachings of an altruistic Jesus. It doesn't even matter who wrote it when, what matters is learning from these writings and trying to make yourself a better person with what you learn.

All this aside, I would be interested in what forensic methods were used. Are we talking handwriting, style and grammar? How the bible and other religious texts came to be and how they evolved has always been interesting to me.

That's very interesting. Makes one wonder about how the books of the bible came to be. The OT/NT contradictions and even the similarities between Christian/Jew/Muslim are sometimes startling. This bit of info made me think of that. You may have been impressed differently, but that's what it made me think anyway.

I am the author of this work, CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUIST. That website which was referred to posts brief descriptions of books and other media projects which the readers of the website vote for if they think that any given project described there ought to be published. One of the website's partners is Simon & Schuster, but other publishers might also be watching the site to see which book ideas, and other media projects, interest people. The way to vote there to publish a book is to click the up arrow next to that work's title.

The description of each project there is required to be quite brief. A vote to publish a work is not a statement that you would necessarily buy the book if it were published. It's only to say that, given this brief description, you would want to look at the book if it were in bookstores. None of the books at that website has been published, and quite possibly none of them will ever be published. Publishers reject well over 99% of books which are proposed to them, and most publishers don't even look at the proposals authors send to them, but send these proposals straight to "the circular file."

So, all that's involved here is whether or not, if the given book were in a bookstore, you would want to simply look at it.

Obviously, the vast majority of books in a bookstore aren't even looked at, and a person pulls off the shelf or counter display only a few books to examine, and might not purchase any of them. So, readers at that website are simply telling publishers which books they'd probably want to look at if the given work were published.

Publishers do this; they are only now starting to use the web in this way; in order to help them get input from the general public before they make the substantial investment in publishing a book. Over 90% of the books they publish lose money. Their acquisitions editors are wrong well over 90% of the time. Publishers are hoping that the public will help out, so that there will be fewer such "remainders" and fewer millions of books that end up going straight from their warehouses to the pulping mills. If they succeed in this, then there will be far less waste, and book prices will be able to come down substantially.

I appreciate your input on your own manuscript/and future book. I think it assists in understanding the OT (original topic) as well as the process involved in this kind of publishing. I had no idea so many books were recycled in the mills, for lack of interest in the subject matter. My personal library helped save many titles from that fate, if I do say so. I am the proud owner of quite the eclectic collection.

I am also curious as to how you found this thread/site. I had posted another thread about a wiccan high priestess being harassed by a mainstream religious bunch, and amazingly enough someone associated with that coven came to share a bit of input on the matter. So now I'm wondering how you happened to find us.

Again I appreciate your sharing on this matter. And all good fortune to you, in a future publication of your work. I'll certainly be looking for it when it hits the bookstores.

All the best,
GW

Like GW, I would welcome the opportunity to read more... so I do hope the book is published.

I believe like alot of detroiters do - he was cremated . nothing will ever be found of him

Actually, he was murdered by the Iceman Richard Kuklinski . His body was ground into meat and was served as the sausage, in natural casing, at the next meeting of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and also at the restaurant, Machus Red Fox. (Now out of business)

I'm very interested in it. I would like to know the methodology they used to determine Paul and his followers wrote the New Testament.

Eric Zuesse responds:

It's a methodology which started being applied after around 1950, which was the era when the first-ever trials of white-collar crimes took place. These types of trials tend to depend largely upon interpreting documentary evidence and reconstructing a series of events based upon documents which refer to them. Nowadays this can include e-mails, but originally it was more mundane, letters, notes, memos, etc. Unlike a scholar of the New Testament or of ancient Greek classics, who may question whether such writers were accurate but not whether they were intending to deceive, a court cannot simply assume honesty and has developed ways of ferreting out deceptions from truth. For example, Galatians 2:11-16 shows Paul condemning Peter in front of his men, and yet the "agents from James" weren't condemned even though they had precipitated the conflict, and Paul never condemned James by name to others in the group; moreover Acts 15:13-21 shows James and not Peter making the ultimate decision concluding the council in Jerusalem; and thus both passages, in Galatians and in Acts, necessarily logically imply that James was the group's leader and that Peter was not. However, the Gospels, in Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15-17, explicitly assert that Peter was superior to James in authority within the group. One legal/forensic principle in interpreting documents is that what's logically necessarily implied by a document is better evidence than what's explicitly asserted, because the latter displays the agenda of the writer including any of his intended deceptions, whereas the former tends not to.

Well, that's interesting. I hope the book is published. I would like to read it.

Why does this matter? What is wanted to be gained from this?

Eric Zuesse replies:

Are you asking what is to be gained from the book, or what is to be gained from voting that it become published?

If you're asking the former question, I think that knowing how the moral base of our culture actually started is interesting to many people, and might be useful in preventing such frauds from grabbing hold in the future, so it's really an interest in both the future and the past.

If you're asking what's to be gained from publishing the book, I would say that, if the work fails to be published (and this outcome is reasonably to be expected), then probably this theory of Christian origins won't become available for a long time, if ever.

Now, perhaps I have made some errors, and perhaps this theory of Christian origins is wrong. Also, perhaps Lee Harvey Oswald didn't really kill JFK, or perhaps he didn't do it alone. But "history" becomes whatever is believed to be such, and some Bible-believers are convinced that the Earth was created around 6,000 years ago. And other people want to know what really happened.

If you are convinced that the New Testament was written by followers and supporters of Jesus, not even possibly by followers and supporters of Paul who was a traitor to Jesus and his followers, and if you're closed-minded to the possibility that you've been hoodwinked about that, then perhaps you don't care whether this book will ever be published. But that's a choice everyone makes for him/herself, and it ultimately reflects both the given individual and the wider world.

Aw heck... now I'm even more interested. And if the book's not published I'll never know what's in it. That's a bit of a pain in the bum.

I ask simply because I see no reason to overturn the religion that has been created in the name of Christ. I have no interest in learning who created the religion. I only have interest in correcting the religion and those who believe in it. Perhaps this can be done by looking at what Christ himself may have wanted, however it may also compromise the religion itself if christ was mortal.

I think that can be expanded upon, if I may. If (Hypothetical here so please, no flames) , christ was found to have been mortal, would it serve to keep that knowledge secreted away, so that the faithful in an ascended god/man, remained so?! When, again if, it were discovered he was mortal, it would mean their worship was in faith of another human being. Perhaps exemplary, and yet, still a man.

So, if a faith was born of what is posited in this research, a fraud. Perpetrated by the man named Peter, for control of minds and souls, is it a good thing for mankind to hold hope (faith) in what is, at it's essence, (again hypothetical), a fraud!?

It depends on what comes of the faith. I have no interest in destroying the faith because it was based on a myth if it is doing good for the world. I would merely hope to correct and expand upon the myth.

Hmm, interesting.

Do you think it better to live up to a myth, holding faith by what I mean to "live up to", if it is wholly fiction. (Again, hypothetically) Or rather, if it were complete fraud, and was proven, would it serve human kind, to know that, so that they might seek their own council, and find their own path to god from within, where even jesus is said to have said, the kingdom of god resides!?

Because, and the chapter and verse escape me now, in the Old Testament it is said that god said he imprinted himself (paraphrasing here) into the very essence of his human creation, so that no matter what , they would carry an innate sense of the holy spirit within them. Making mans religions, unnecessary, because god has already made himself known, by carving , in a sense, his presence, upon the heart and soul of his children.

So, do you think it would serve to recognize, again hypothetically if the St.Paul allegation is valid, a myth for what it is. Allegory, not true history, so that mankind might then have the opportunity to free themselves from the constraints sectarian loyalty often implies, within all of the human community, so that people might better serve themselves by having a choice, between worship of a myth and honoring their own sense of god, as it comes, after the religious myth imparted a sense of what that is, and as such where to look!?

I always believe it better to judge what is right yourself then to let a book do it for you. However, much of what many people use to judge themselves comes from that book. I'm just not sure how they would respond to the fact that their faith has been based on a myth.

and yet, if it were a fact that it was a myth, wouldn't the fact be what matters? As opposed to the response that someone has been at worship in a myth, all along!? Is it better to face the truth, or live the delusion!?

Eric Zuesse replies:

Adolf Hitler believed the Bible. In his private notes in 1919 at the time when he was just entering politics, he referred to "The Bible--Monumental History of Mankind" as the source he was consulting in order to understand what caused original sin, so that he could stamp out original sin. He concluded that in Genesis 3, the snake was the source, and also that in John 8:44, Matthew 23:31-38 and other passages in the New Testament, Christ had allegedly said that Jews descended from the snake, and that the snake was Satan. So Hitler concluded that Jews were not actually humans -- he had it from Christ, in that "Monumental History of Mankind." And so, on 18 December 1926, Hitler told a group of followers, "The teachings of Christ have laid the foundation for the war against the Jews as the enemy of all mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish." (His phrase that Jews were "the enemy of all mankind" came actually from Christ's ventriloquist directly, in Paul's own 1 Thessalonians 2:15, but this was still from the "Monumental HISTORY of Mankind.") Hitler said this more than a decade before he started his "final solution to the Jewish problem." Additional inspiration was Revelation 20:1-6, in which, after Satan is vanquished, God's People will reign for a thousand years -- Hitler's public phrase for this idea became "The Thousand-Year Reich." But first, he had to exterminate the Jews: Revelation 20:1-6 pointed the way for him on that.

Hitler confused a book of lies as being the "Monumental History of Mankind." But he wasn't the first to do so. During the Crusades, all of Europe became swept up in a mass movement to slaughter both Jews and Muslims.

And, of course, on both sides in all other religious wars, including Al Qaeda's war against the Christian West, and the Catholic/Protestant wars in Ireland, and the wars in the former Yugoslavia, and the war between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, etc., etc., one God's People aspire to slaughter another's, and it's all based on everyone's belief, like Hitler's that some Scripture is the "Monumental History of Mankind."

This isn't to deny that, in some short-sighted view of things, these lies which pass for "History" might seem to be benign. But it's all ultimately an illusion: religion is always at war against science, regardless whether that's evolution (something Hitler condemned, as he passionately reasserted creationism), or the age of the Earth, or the origin of the Jews, or the origin of Christianity itself, or whatever.

Yes, in a shortsighted view of things, a nostalgic looking-back to a "simpler" time which was based even more upon myths than is our own, may look pretty good. But the closer a view you get, the more that zoom-lens hones in, the uglier that face becomes, and the starker appears the ultimate reality: that progress can be based only upon truth, and that therefore religion, which is based upon lies, is evil and a great threat.

This isn't to assert anything about whether some kind of god actually exists, but it's a condemnation of religion, the eternal enemy of science. A god could exist and yet all religions could be wrong. The problem with religion isn't any god; it's the lies and deception which constitute the lifeblood of any faith. And ultimately, evil derives from lies, and good is based only upon truth, and the only way toward more truth and less lies is science. We still are in the Religious Age; the Scientific Age started only about 500 years ago and isn't yet even beyond its infancy. But the nostalgic look back is simply shortsighted.

Anyway, that's what I think. Especially after having done the research which produced CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUIST.

I'll say if this is a preview of the book, I look forward even more to the publication date. As has been said in these forums before, religion isn't about spirit, it's about control. Holy wars, lend evidence in themselves that , to paraphrase Rushdie , it is a strange collection of gods indeed, that need men to establish and then defend, it's dominion on Earth.

All that would matter is what would give the people the most hope to live a good life. I don't care if it's Jesus, Allah, Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This book will do nothing to stop those who believe, only irrefutable proof that Christ were mortal came about would there be a significant effect on the christian population. Even then there would be those who would still believe in his divine nature, and then those who would be just as enamored with the teachings of a mortal Jesus.

As for Islam? Is there a way to refute them? where is Muhammad's ventriloquist?

It doesn't matter what the truth is, if the lies are stronger within the mind of man. Faith cannot be destroyed.

I am not really in this debate...just making a comment...even the proof you mention would be blown off as a hoax, by all but the "fence sitting" Christians. It is genetically ingrained in us to believe in a Creator, so they would just keep believing...just look at how you folk try to explain away the contradictions between Matthew and Luke and between Matthew, Luke and recorded history. It is not feasible that the two gospels are telling the truth about Jesus' birth. Just doesn't meet what is known about the history of that period.

I would rather know the truth, in all things. I see no point in living a lie. How can a person choose if they don't have all of the information available to make that choice possible? If someone discovered proof that there's no Creator, I'd rather know. If we were all dropped here by aliens, I wish they'd just come back and tell us so I can adapt and move on. I don't want to live in a world of make believe thanks all the same.

Sounding rather like Fox Mulder... the truth is out there... and I would rather know what it is.

Right, and the fence sitters may still fall back onto the christian side of the fence, as they'd be more enamored with the teachings of a mortal jesus than a god-like figure.




I seek peace rather than the truth. What brings about that peace isn't of much importance to me so long as it is not malevolent in nature.

I would think initiating and fostering a lie, is malevolent in nature.

Faith , with respect to christian theology, is defined as: The trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

The contradictions abound in the bible. As Mako mentioned, two gospels who's authors can't agree on christ's birth, and especially when those gospels don't set with the real history of the time, lend evidence of a falsehood. If faith is suppose to engender hope, what is hope if it's predicated on a lie!?

The flying spaghetti monster does not exist. There's no proof it doesn't exist, though it's never been seen. Thus, it is easy for someone to create a website and affirm it's existence, based on the faith such a thing does exist, because someone saw fit to reveal that as evidenced by what is compiled and broadcast on the net, as the flying pasta creature. And because that website exists, so to does the monster.

But is the carbohydrate deity real?
No!
So, if one was baptized in the faith of what is related on that website, in a giant pool of marinara, would they then rise up, red and anointed as a disciple of pasta? Would they then live their life in service to the scriptures of Semolina? Is there salvation for one's soul, believing pasta with meatball eyes, saves?

No!
So, is it wisdom to have hope that it's believable, when it's not really true?

As an occultist, I have to differ on this one. If enough people really believe in the f.s.m., energy is sent to the astral to develop a thought form. A thought form is a very real thing, no matter whether the original basis was a lie.

Ah yes, the Egregore. Evidenced by the long lived cult of christian thought to this day. True enough, thank you for that input.
And yet, while the thought form is there, that it's based on fraud is still the issue, I think. Because then it becomes a thought form born from deception and as such is weak, for that. Consequently, I would think the knowledge of this produces it's own Egregore of sorts, to combat that delusion, when the truth has a life of it's own.

Just a guess. Seems like a relevant picture to me. Could be wrong. If so, set me straight.

funny you should say that...i have a close friend who works in a meat packing house in Chicago....he says. "never, ever, eat hamburger unless you see it ground from scratch."...you think he suspects something????

randomhit10

Point well made and probably quite true. I could see that as happening.

I've heard that myself a number of times. Maybe that's where the writers in the Soprano's got the notion from, when they ground up Tony Soprano's brother in law at the butcher shop the mafia, in the story, owned.

Of course, now that frozen ground chuck in my freezer awaiting it's lasagna destiny suddenly looks a little funny.

I think I'll call it, "George" !


Ha! I can see my lovers face now.
What's for dinner tonight baby?
George!
With a side salad.

Eric Zuesse responds:

That view implicitly assumes that a "peace" which is based on lies is real and not just temporary, or not a "peace" which is based only upon oppression and suppression of dissidents or of other opponents. That view implicitly accepts the existing power-structure.

The supposed modifier was "so long as it is not malevolent in nature." However, there, too, things were unknowingly being simply assumed, such as the definition of what constitutes "malevolent in nature." In other words, the evaluative base is being assumed there, and is then being applied so as to approve of a "peace" which is based upon lies. The evaluative base is false, but the person who assumes it doesn't know that.

I don't see how that viewpoint is less delusional than straight-out fundamentalist belief, such as Hitler's, that the Bible is "the Monumental History of Mankind" instead of a myth.

I think that what this reflects is that our culture doesn't sufficiently respect truth: Too few people recognize that, in the final analysis, everything that comes from lies is bad. In some instances, much time has to pass before the bad becomes overwhelmingly manifest so that people can recognize it and associate it with its cause in the given lie which had long ago preceded it.

What goes around, comes around, even if you're no longer there to see it.

lol...now you got me going to look at the hamburger in my freezer to see if it looks familiar....would wine make it better????

randomhit10

I have no doubt that that which is based on lies, shall eventually fall to the truth. Even without the research that allegedly sponsors the conclusion in the gods ventriloquist title, one may say they know it to be a lie, anything that effects mass genocide, in order to assume it's station as the predominant god construct/faith, on the planet. Tolerance is not manifest of such campaigns. Not even today, when legislative process attempts to take inroads to assuming a religious doctrine into secular society. (Anti-abortion measures sought to curtail the legal access to the elective procedure, pharmacists having the right to invoke religious moral grounds so as to violate their oath of service to the general public, even petitions to effect prohibitions in public school libraries, because some titles are deemed unchristian by the secular parent community, etc....)

I don't understand how one's faith, can be assumed to be strong and of the spirit in tune to god, if what is assumed as the path that led one to that, is predicated on blatant falsehood and as such, manipulation of the mental process that adopts the fraud that then commands the emotional attachment that is engendered within those ignorant of the fallacy behind their faith. If indeed there was no jesus, worship of that what did not exist, is futile. If there was no jesus to speak what is alleged to be the result of the gospels, written decades after the crucifixion of someone that did not exist, then faith in their word is predicated on a lie. And, even as an Atheist, I must admit, I don't know how one can find solace in that what was penned to control the mind, when the authors of such misrepresentation knew they were deceiving the gullible reader public, to dedicate their life to a man made institutionalized loyalty for a fictional character.

If it is indeed all a fraud, it is tantamount to living one's life by the reckoning of Grimm's fairy tales. And I don't think that would be at issue, really, if it weren't for the countless lives and cultures that have been and continue to be, deceived by what would then be misrepresentation perpetuated by missionaries and especially the clergy of Rome, so as to engage faith in fiction.
It serves no purpose to build character, as I see it, when one bows to fraud.