Agnostic.com

2 1

CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity — Eric Zuesse

Has anyone read this book? If so, what are your thoughts?

It looks interesting. But, not something I didn't already know about Paul and "Christianity." I'll read it soon, however, because I think it goes into a LOT more detail and history, than I could have ever learned on my own. NOTE: Some of the critics complain that Zuesse is "pedantic, condescending, and worst of all, endlessly repetitive."

A quote from Amazon's intro:

“This book also explains and documents the tortuous 14-year-long conflict Paul had had with this sect’s leader, Jesus’s brother James, a conflict which caused Paul, in about the year 50, to perpetrate his coup d’état against James, and to start his own new religion: Christianity.

“Then, this historical probe documents that the four canonical Gospel accounts of the words and actions of “Jesus” were written decades after Jesus, by followers of Paul, not by followers of Jesus; and that these writings placed into the mouth of “Jesus” the agenda of Paul. Paul thus became, via his followers, Christ’s ventriloquist.”

“The author explains: “What I am doing in this work is to reconstruct from the New Testament the crucial events that produced it, without assuming whether what the NT says in any given passage is necessarily true or even honest. Instead of treating the NT as a work that ‘reports history,’ the NT is treated as a work whose history is itself being investigated and reported. Its origin goes back to this coup d’état that Paul perpetrated in Antioch in the year 49 or 50 against Jesus’s brother James in Jerusalem, whom Jesus in Jerusalem had appointed in the year 30 as his successor to lead the Jewish sect that Jesus had started. The Gospel accounts of ‘Jesus’ reflected Paul’s coup d’état – not actually Jesus, who would be appalled at the Christian concept of ‘Christ.’ That concept was radically different from the Jewish concept of the messiah, and Paul knew this when he created it”.”

[amazon.com]

Daco2007 7 Sep 30
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I don't see much agreement between Paul's Jesus and the gospel Jesus, so I'm skeptical that the gospels were constructed to cement Paul's dogma. To the contrary, I think they were a corrective for it. Paul's Jesus was celestial, ethereal, spiritual; the gospel Jesus is a flesh and blood human. Paul was a gnostic or proto-gnostic, and the gospels, I suspect, evolved from the proto-orthodoxy of the Jerusalem council, Paul's arch-nemesis.

Hundreds of years later, when the canon of the New Testament was officially finalized, I theorize that Paul was brilliantly neutered and subsumed into Christian orthodoxy so as to be reinterpreted in the framing provided by the gospels. This was accomplished by the simple device of putting the gospels (written AD 70 to 90, if not later) first in the canon, followed by the much earlier writings of Paul (starting ca. 47 AD). This caused them to be reinterpreted with the gospel presuppositions.

If Paul made a contribution to Christianity, it was to force a break from Judaism. Or more accurately, to forge a rival Gentile offshoot of The Way, which eventually grew larger and more influential, especially when The Way became a threat to power structures within Judaism, and began to be persecuted rather than tolerated.

1

I have to read this. It would be a good book and it goes right along with my thinking. Paul was the anti-christ that we take differently today.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:408571
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.