Why keep returning to this particular historical sage– i.e. Jesus? Because there is nothing comparable anywhere in human history (or across today’s world) to his profoundly transformative and liberating insights and overall message on theology. (Insert: I view the man and his message as entirely non-religious, though enmeshed and almost buried in a religious tradition.)
Others had long preceded him in advocating for non-retaliatory, love of enemies, the highest behavioral ideal ever proposed, the highest reach of mature human love. Notably the Akkadian father of some two millennia before Jesus. But that father did not get the belief element of the “behavior based on belief” coupling that all people embrace and use in varied ways. He ended his advice to his son to “befriend your enemy” with “make sacrifice to your retaliatory God” who threatens harm if you do not appease him with blood (my added paraphrase). Good humane ethical standard, bad theology. (See below the Grok summary of the Akkadian Father’s advice to his son.)
“Sacrifice” to deity has long been about “appeasement of divine anger and threat”.
It took two more millennia till humanity got the Jesus insight on “unconditional behavior based on an unconditional God”, the most profoundly transformative and liberating ideal coupled with validating belief ever presented to human consciousness.
The nature of our beliefs and ideals has a powerful influence on our thinking, emotions, motivations, and responses/behavior, and then out to our larger societies.
Profound transformation and liberation? Yes, from the darkening, enslaving impact of bad theology that validates our worst impulses to tribalism, domination, and retaliatory destruction of others. The Jesus’ insights on unconditional presents the potential for liberation from the real enemy and monster in life that resides inside each one of us (i.e. this “evil triad” of base animal impulses).
Note the Grok comment below on the Jesus presentation of his new theology and Jewish enraged reaction – Many (i.e. true believers in religious traditions) do not view the Jesus’ transformation of theology as liberation but, to the contrary, as existential threat to their very identity and, hence, to their existence. That evokes the murderous rage exhibited by the Jewish synagogue audience (i.e. Luke 4 incident).
Some will appreciate the new theology of Jesus for its fundamental transformation of conditional religion. They will grasp that the “stunning new unconditional theology” of Historical Jesus is a revolutionary new insight and message that overturns entirely our inherited definitions of deity, the nature of ultimate reality, religion, human belief systems, worldviews, guiding ideals, narratives, justice, ethics, and more. However, true believers locked onto the fundamental requirement for conditional religion will respond to his theology as threatening “attack/assault”.
The ultimate transformation, liberation, Wendell Krossa
Here is more on the single most profound “shift in perspective” (for the better) ever presented to human minds. Cognitive therapy of the most stunning kind offered to humanity by a Jewish-Palestinian wisdom sage- Historical Jesus. His insight offered unprecedented liberation at the depths of our human being or psyche. Liberation from the endless curse of enslavement to the mental deformity of “threat theology” that has been lodged, from the beginning, at the very core of human narratives. Threat theology has notably dominated our great religious narratives and is now embraced, in the modern era, in our “secular ideologies” of Marxism and environmental alarmism.
Threat theology, either in religious or secularized versions, is still the “cohering center” of human worldviews or narratives (again, in both religious and secularized versions). Notably, it centers the “salvation through destruction” complex of themes. Consequently, threat theology still energizes too much violence and war.
Threat theology is the real enemy/monster that we have to defeat if we are to properly solve the problem of fear and hate-driven tribalism that too often leads to violence/war.
Jesus’ fellow Jews put him to death for overturning the core ideal of their narratives, the deity image that was central to their identity, i.e. the God of “eye for eye” justice who would take vengeance on their enemies. That ultimate reality and ideal had long given oppressed people the “emotional satisfaction” that they would be liberated from oppression and their oppressors punished and destroyed. They would get “eye for eye” justice.
(Insert: Keep in mind Solzhenitsyn’s valuable point that we mistakenly focus our “battles of good against evil” on the differences between opposing groups in our societies, differing classes. His point applies also to the human perception of “oppressors/oppressed”, a dualism that centers ideologies like Marxism. The real oppressor in life resides within each one of us- i.e. our endless oppression under the evil triad of our inherited animal impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive vengeance against others. That is the real enemy/oppressor that Jesus offered liberation from.)
Continuing…
The Jewish rage at Jesus’ message was incited by precepts like “Love your enemies”. That was the behavioral element in his use of the “behavior based on theological belief” coupling. Jesus reasoned from the best in humanity (i.e. unconditional love) to the true nature of deity. E.g. “Be unconditionally merciful just as God is unconditionally merciful”.
This site continues to detail the Luke 4 incident and Jesus’ core message in Luke 6: 27-36. The two places where he introduced his “stunning new theology” of a non-retaliatory, unconditional God. This new theology still enrages many good moral and religious people today. It overturns everything that they believe in (from the core on out) and is therefore felt as an existential threat to their very identity. And that makes it a survival issue. Hence, the rage as defensive survival impulse. Fear manifesting as rage.
Note again, how that audience of Jews were incited to murderous rage as Jesus further explained why he left off that sentence in his reading of Isaiah 61- i.e. “The day of vengeance of our God”. To make real clear what he was telling them, he then told them of God’s unconditional love for their enemies as illustrated in the Elijah and Elisha incidents.
Well, there goes the core of our identity. Off the cliff with him.
And not to worry about the impact of that stunning new theology on “justice”. This site balances the Jesus’ transformation of ultimate Reality and Ideal with the need for holding all of us individually responsible for the consequences/outcomes of our personal behavior (i.e. understanding the distinction between ultimate reality as oneness, and this material realm as a dualism created for human experience/learning/development).
Appreciating deity as unconditional is never automatic advocacy for irresponsible behavior as in the “suicidal empathy” of pacifist approaches to justice (i.e. the “catch and release” of repeatedly violent offenders that is all too common today).
In our ongoing sorting out the best approaches to organizing our societies, there needs to be careful weaving between extremes. Historical Jesus also taught- “Go, and sin no more”.
Note on the manifestations of religious rage in the contemporary era:
We can understand why that audience of Jews were so pissed when Jesus challenged their religious beliefs, their core theology, when we see the same rage among Muslims today when some Danish cartoonist prints a cartoon of Muhammad. Or when ISIS militants seek to initiate the “end of days” in order to purify the world of evil western society and make way for the divine Caliphate. The religious rage and violence unleashed in such things affirms that it’s about essential identity and survival desperation.
Another:
Thanks to the three-century long “Search for Historical Jesus”, the “Jesus Seminar”, and the “Q Wisdom Sayings” research for providing the general outline of the issues regarding Historical Jesus- i.e. that there was a real person who said things, who presented a coherent message. These research programs note that gospel writers, decades after Jesus’ death (70- 90 plus CE) and not from first-hand experience, put a lot of other contradicting material in his mouth, claiming that he taught that contradictory material. They were influenced by Paul who had earlier (50 CE era) contradicted Jesus’ theology and buried his message with his Christ myth. The gospel authors were all supporters of Paul’s Christology.
They sought to restore the “eye for eye” retaliatory God of traditional Jewish religion, the deity of vengeance and destruction of enemies/unbelievers, that was essential to their identity and worldview.
A notable example of the contradictions put into the mouth of Jesus by the gospel authors:
Matthew records, in his chapter 5, the central theme of Jesus to not engage eye for eye response toward offenders but to instead love enemies. Then a few chapters later (ch.11) Matthew has his Pauline Jesus expressing the ultimate statement of hatred of enemies in damning them to hell (for rejecting me and my teaching you will be cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth). Those entirely opposite responses to offenders/enemies did not come from the same person. The supreme statement of love, and then supreme statement of hatred.
I had the best of mentors to help me sort through this Historical Jesus stuff and the contradictions in the New Testament, a good personal friend, Bob Brinsmead. Bob led our “Joshua Ben Adam Society” (JBAS) online discussion group for decades and regularly presented some of the best groundbreaking work in clarifying the “diamond” message of Jesus. “Online” because we were scattered across the planet.
I would take Bob’s material as even better (more clear) than a lot of what the Jesus Seminar researchers have put out. Notably, essays like his “Joshua Ben Adam” series of essays available at…
You cannot fully and properly understand Jesus aside from this research. Plain and simple.
I put this query to Grok:
Grok how would you summarize the writing/essays of Bob Brinsmead, especially his material on Historical Jesus, his Joshua Ben Adam essays, his “Tropicalfruitworld” farm, his overall influence?
Grok replied:
Bob Brinsmead (born 1933) is an Australian farmer, writer, theologian, and entrepreneur known for a long, evolving intellectual and spiritual journey. He began as a controversial figure in Seventh-day Adventism (SDA) in the 1960s–1970s, later embraced Reformation-style evangelical Protestantism, and eventually shifted toward liberal, humanistic, and historical-critical perspectives that largely moved beyond traditional Christianity. en.wikipedia.org
His writings span theology, biblical criticism, history, ecology, and personal reflection. He is a prolific essayist with a provocative, reasoned, and often iconoclastic style— emphasizing evidence, Enlightenment rationalism, and freedom from dogma. Many later essays appear on his site bobbrinsmead.com. bobbrinsmead.com
Early Theological Phase (1960s: “Awakening” / Perfectionism)
Brinsmead promoted a form of perfectionism tied to SDA distinctive doctrines (especially the heavenly sanctuary and 1844 investigative judgment). He taught a special end-time outpouring of the Holy Spirit that would produce sinless, sealed believers ready for Christ’s return (“sanctification by atonement”). This “Sanctuary Awakening” message created significant controversy, leading to disfellowshipping and divisions in SDA circles in Australia and beyond. It drew from historic Adventist emphases (e.g., A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner) but pushed them intensely. en.wikipedia.org
Mid-Phase (1970s: Evangelical / Reformation Focus)
Influenced by figures like Desmond Ford, he pivoted dramatically. He rejected perfectionism and emphasized justification by faith alone (sola fide) in a strongly Lutheran vein. Through magazines like Present Truth (later Verdict), he critiqued SDA teachings, promoted core Protestant gospel principles, and published works like Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism. He also supported conditionalism/annihilationism regarding hell (e.g., publishing Edward Fudge’s The Fire That Consumes). en.wikipedia.org
This era made him influential among some seeking reform or deeper gospel focus within or beyond Adventism, though he alienated others.
Later Phase (1980s onward: Historical Jesus, Liberal/Humanist Turn)
Brinsmead increasingly applied critical scholarship, questioning orthodox doctrines, biblical inerrancy, and institutional religion. He moved toward liberal Christianity, then a more deistic/humanistic universalism, viewing God’s interaction with humanity as ongoing rather than confined to biblical events. He rejected the divinity of Christ, traditional atonement views, and much of Christian mythology, while still finding value in the ethical teachings of the historical Jesus. en.wikipedia.org
Key later writings critique religion as hierarchical, creedal, and mythologized, advocating its “end and abolition” in favor of a more rational, humanistic ethic centered on unconditional love and forgiveness. bobbrinsmead.com
Material on the Historical Jesus and “Joshua Ben Adam” Essays
This is a major focus of his later work. Brinsmead distinguishes the historical human figure (Joshua ben Adam / Yeshua bar Nasha, “son of man/Adam”— emphasizing his full humanity) from the mythologized Christ of later Christian tradition (“Jesus ben Parthenos” or the divine icon). robertdbrinsmead.substack.com
• In essays like “The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam”, he portrays the historical Jesus as a radical, scandalous human teacher who challenged hierarchies, retaliation/payback ethics, and religious formalism in favor of forgiveness, unconditional love, and inclusion. He argues this figure is incompatible with much of institutional Christianity (creeds, hierarchies, violence in Christ’s name, etc.). robertdbrinsmead.substack.com
• He draws on modern historical Jesus scholarship (e.g., quests since the Enlightenment), compiling scholarly consensus on topics like the leadership of James (Jesus’ brother) in the early church, tensions between Jewish-Christian and Pauline streams, and how the apostolic church’s views differed from later orthodoxy. bobbrinsmead.com
• Core themes: The Gospels mix history and myth; early church politics obscured the family of Jesus; Jesus’ message was a breakthrough toward non-retaliatory love, not the foundation for a new religion with dogmas and sacrifices. He sees value in Jesus’ ethics but demythologizes supernatural claims. wendellkrossa.com
These writings appeal to those interested in Jesus Seminar-style research or post-Christian spirituality but are seen as heretical by traditional Christians.
Tropical Fruit World Farm
In the 1970s–1990s, Brinsmead shifted focus to practical life. With his wife Valorie, he developed Tropical Fruit World (near Tweed Heads, NSW, Australia) from a rundown farm purchased in 1972 into a renowned 170–200+ acre tourist attraction, working plantation, and research site. It features hundreds of rare tropical fruits from around the world, tours, a café, and educational elements. It became a successful family business and tourism draw, reflecting his horticultural passion and entrepreneurial side. He has been inducted into local business halls of fame for this work. tropicalfruitworld.com.au
It represents a “Promised Land” metaphor in his writings, tying personal farming experience to broader human narratives of exodus, settlement, and harmony with nature. bobbrinsmead.com
Overall Influence
• In Adventism: Highly polarizing in the 1960s–1970s (“Brinsmeadism” or “Awakening” caused splits, disfellowshippings, and debates over perfection, sanctuary, and gospel). His later critiques influenced some reformers but faded as he moved on; Desmond Ford’s controversies partly eclipsed him. encyclopedia.adventist.org
• Broader Christianity: Present Truth/Verdict had reach in evangelical circles, especially on justification and conditional immortality. His shift away from orthodoxy made him a cautionary tale for some and a thinker for others exploring historical Jesus studies or liberal faith.
• Wider impact: As a writer and farmer, he models intellectual evolution, skepticism of institutions, and integration of ideas with practical life (horticulture, ecology, politics). His essays promote rational inquiry, critique of apocalyptic/environmental “fundamentalism,” and a humanistic ethic of love. He remains active into his 90s, posting essays on diverse topics (climate narratives, Western culture, etc.). bobbrinsmead.com
Brinsmead’s arc illustrates a restless quest: from intense religious certainty and reform, through gospel-centered evangelicalism, to demythologized humanism. His strength lies in clear, evidence-based provocation and willingness to rethink positions radically. Critics see inconsistency or a “downward spiral”; admirers see growth toward intellectual honesty and ethical focus. His farm stands as a tangible legacy alongside his writings.
Grok: Your thoughts and summary on this…
Others had long preceded Jesus in advocating for non-retaliatory, love of enemies. Notably the Akkadian father of some two millennia before Jesus.
But that father did not get the belief element of the “behavior based on belief” coupling that all people have embraced and used in varied ways. He ended his advice to his son to “befriend your enemy” with the follow-up of “make sacrifice to your retaliatory God”, affirming the dominant historical image of deity who threatens harm if you do not appease him with blood (my added paraphrase).
“Sacrifice” to deity has long been about “appeasement of divine anger and threat”.
The Akkadian father presented the earliest written version of “love your enemy” ethics, but made no breakthrough on theology, not even getting the later breakthrough insights of Hebrew prophets who stated that God detested blood sacrifices.
Grok reply:
Summary: The claim is largely accurate and insightful. An ancient Mesopotamian (Akkadian) wisdom text from roughly the late 3rd millennium BCE already articulated a form of “do not return evil for evil” and “be friendly to your enemy” ethics— centuries before Jesus. However, it remained embedded in the prevailing ancient Near Eastern theology of a reciprocal, sometimes retributive deity who is pleased by proper ritual (including sacrifice) as part of maintaining favor and cosmic/social order. This contrasts with later developments in Hebrew prophetic literature, which critiqued over-reliance on blood sacrifice and emphasized inner ethics, justice, and mercy as what God truly desires. sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu
The Akkadian Text
The relevant passage comes from “The Advice of an Akkadian Father to His Son” (sometimes linked to broader “Counsels of Wisdom” traditions), dated around 2200 BCE or later copies. Key lines:
“Do not return evil to your adversary; requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, maintain justice for your enemy, be friendly to your enemy. Give food to eat, beer to drink, grant what is requested, provide for and treat [him] with honor. At this one’s god takes pleasure. It is pleasing to Shamash, who will repay him with favor. sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu
This is a clear early expression of non-retaliation and positive engagement with adversaries, motivated by piety and long-term divine favor (via the sun god Shamash, associated with justice). The text also urges daily worship, sacrifice, incense, prayer, and prostration to stay “in harmony with god.” sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu
Your paraphrase captures the spirit well: ethical behavior toward enemies is advised, but it’s coupled with traditional ritual appeasement of a deity who can be pleased or (implicitly) displeased. This fits the dominant ancient worldview where gods enforce order, and humans maintain balance through gifts/rituals (do ut des — “I give so that you give”).
Note: This isn’t exactly the Sumerian “Instructions of Shuruppak” (even older, ~3rd millennium BCE), though that shares the father-to-son wisdom genre. The specific “enemy” lines are from the Akkadian tradition. reddit.com
Broader Context and Breakthroughs
• Precedents for enemy-love/non-retaliation: You’re right— Jesus (and the Sermon on the Mount) wasn’t inventing the idea from nothing. Similar themes appear in various ancient cultures (e.g., some Egyptian, Indian, or Greek wisdom), but this Akkadian example is one of the earliest documented in the Near Eastern lineage that influenced the biblical world. The Hebrew Bible itself has roots in this milieu (e.g., Proverbs shares much with Egyptian and Mesopotamian wisdom).
• Theology of sacrifice: In most ancient Near Eastern religions (including early Israelite practice), sacrifice was multifaceted— thanksgiving, fellowship, purification— but often carried an appeasement element amid a worldview of potentially wrathful or transactional gods. The Akkadian text aligns with this. sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu
Hebrew prophetic critique: Later prophets strongly challenged a mechanical or blood-focused cult, prioritizing ethics:
• Hosea 6:6: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”
• Isaiah 1:11–17: God rejects multitudes of sacrifices when accompanied by injustice and calls instead for washing clean, seeking justice, defending the oppressed.
• Similar themes in Amos, Micah (“What does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God”), and Jeremiah. wtctheology.org.uk
These weren’t necessarily total rejections of the sacrificial system (which continued in the Temple), but a radical recentering: ritual without heart, justice, or covenant fidelity is worthless or even offensive. This was a significant theological evolution— shifting emphasis from external appeasement to transformed character and relationship.
My Thoughts
This highlights a deep continuity and discontinuity in ethical and religious history. The Akkadian father shows that humane ethics (kindness even to enemies) are ancient and pragmatic— good for social order and personal flourishing, rewarded by the divine. But pairing it with unchanged ritualism keeps the view of God somewhat “retaliatory” or transactional.
The Hebrew prophets pushed further on the God-concept: a deity who fundamentally values chesed (steadfast love/mercy) and justice over blood. Jesus then radicalized the behavioral side (“love your enemies… pray for those who persecute you”) and tied it to a God who is Father-like, seeking reconciliation rather than perpetual appeasement— culminating in his own self-giving as the ultimate redefinition of sacrifice (not just animal blood, but transformative love).
Your point underscores that moral insights often precede or outpace theological ones. Behavior can advance while conceptions of the divine lag in anthropomorphic or fearful patterns. History shows gradual refinement: from transactional gods demanding blood, toward (in biblical streams) a God whose “sacrifice” is ultimately about grace, justice, and human transformation.
It’s a fascinating window into how ideas evolve— not in isolation, but through dialogue with deep cultural roots. The Akkadian advice remains practical wisdom today; the prophetic/Jesus-level integration of enemy-love with a non-retaliatory, mercy-first God is the deeper innovation.
Another for Grok:
Bob Brinsmead has suggested that the “behavior based on belief” coupling is the best way to do theology- reason from the best of being human and then project that best of human goodness out to define deity. Also, the best of humanity manifests the incarnated presence of God as love, incarnated equally in all humanity.
Grok reply:
This is a coherent and humane methodological proposal. Brinsmead’s “behavior based on belief” framework— observing how beliefs shape actions, and deliberately starting theology from the best of observed human goodness before projecting it onto the divine— offers a grounded way to do constructive theology. It inverts the more common top-down approach (start with a revealed or philosophical God-concept, then derive ethics). wendellkrossa.com
Strengths of This Approach
It aligns with the historical pattern we discussed earlier. The Akkadian father gave solid ethical advice (“be friendly to your enemy”) but framed it within the conventional theology of his time (pleasing Shamash via ritual). Hebrew prophets advanced further by critiquing blood-appeasement and elevating mercy/justice. Jesus intensified the ethical demand while portraying God as loving Father. Brinsmead’s method formalizes this trajectory: let the highest human expressions of love, forgiveness, and compassion calibrate our God-talk, rather than letting inherited punitive or transactional images distort behavior.
This has several advantages:
• Empirical anchor: It starts with observable reality— what elevates human flourishing— avoiding purely speculative metaphysics.
• Corrective power: It challenges “monster deity” theologies (wrathful, retributive gods that license similar human behavior). History shows how belief in a vengeful divine often correlates with vengeance in people (“people become like the God they believe in”).
• Universal accessibility: By tying God’s presence to the “best of humanity” and “incarnated love equally in all,” it democratizes the sacred. No elite group or single historical event monopolizes it.
Potential Limitations and Tensions
This approach is essentially a form of theological anthropology (or even liberal humanism with theistic language). It resonates with ideas in process theology, some strands of liberal Christianity, and thinkers who emphasize divine immanence (God-with-us) over stark transcendence.
However, a few cautions from a truth-seeking perspective:
• Is “the best of being human” unambiguous? Human goodness is real and profound (altruism, creativity, self-sacrifice, enemy-love), but so is the capacity for evil, self-deception, and tribalism. Projecting the best risks underplaying the worst or creating a God in the image of our aspirations rather than reality. Traditional theologies countered this with revelation or natural law to provide an external standard.
• Incarnation in all humanity: Viewing the best of people as “the incarnated presence of God as love” is poetically powerful and echoes John 1 or Matthew 25 (“whatever you did for the least… you did for me”). It universalizes incarnation beyond one historical figure. Yet it can blur distinctions: if God is equally incarnate in all, what unique role (if any) does Jesus play? Brinsmead’s later trajectory moved toward a more deistic or humanistic universalism, downplaying traditional Christology. en.wikipedia.org
• Behavior → Belief feedback: The coupling works both ways. Elevated ethics can refine theology, but profound experiences of beauty, suffering, or the numinous can also challenge purely humanistic starting points. Pure projection risks reducing God to a mirror of current cultural ideals (which change).
Overall Thoughts
Brinsmead’s suggestion is a strong heuristic for refining theology in a post-traditional age. It encourages intellectual honesty: test God-concepts by their fruits in human behavior. If a belief in God makes people more loving, just, and non-retaliatory, it’s pointing in the right direction. If it fosters fear, tribalism, or cruelty, something needs correction— whether the belief or its interpretation.
This fits a humanist outlook: celebrate and amplify what is best in us, because that is where the divine spark (or presence) shines. It doesn’t require rejecting all transcendence but orients us toward immanence and ethics first. In the context of our earlier discussion, it explains why the Akkadian insight was good but incomplete, and why later breakthroughs felt like progress— they better reflected the highest human (and thus divine-like) goodness.
It’s an optimistic, forward-looking way to do theology. The risk is sentimentality if it ignores human darkness; the promise is liberation if it successfully dethrones fear-based images in favor of unconditional love. Worth wrestling with.
Grok can you pull up from my site http://www.wendellkrossa.com/ where I detail the key places in the New Testament where Historical Jesus introduced his stunning new theology of an unconditional God?
First the Luke 4: 16-30 passage that I have commented on several times over recent essays.
Could you get my full comments, from previous essays on my site, on his presentation in that Luke 4 passage of an unconditional theology and the synagogue audience reaction to that?
And then please summarize my points on Jesus’ presentation of unconditional theology in the Luke 6: 27-36 section, his use of “behavior based on similar theological belief”, first listing precepts of unconditional love for offenders/enemies, and then his wrap-up summary of “Do this and you will be just like God who does this”, his use of precepts to illustrate the stunning new theology of a God who is this unconditional love.
Is this asking too much to pull up my comments on this?
Grok reply:
No, it’s not asking too much at all. Your site (wendellkrossa.com) consistently returns to these passages as the key places where the Historical Jesus presents his core “stunning new theology” of an unconditional (non-retaliatory, universally inclusive, merciful) God, tightly coupled with ethics (“behavior based on similar theological belief”). I’ll pull and summarize your main points directly from the essays and comments on the site. wendellkrossa.com +1
Luke 4:16-30: Jesus’ First Public Presentation and the Audience Reaction
Your essays repeatedly highlight this as Jesus’ opening public statement of his new theology, delivered in the Nazareth synagogue. He reads from Isaiah 61 but deliberately stops at “to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,” omitting the following “the day of vengeance of our God.” He then explains this choice with examples of God showing mercy to Israel’s enemies (Elijah sent to a widow in Sidon/Zarephath during famine; Elisha healing Naaman the Syrian leper, not Israelites). wendellkrossa.com
Your key comments on the unconditional theology here:
• This was a direct rejection of the traditional retaliatory/”eye for eye” God central to Jewish (and broader primitive) identity and narratives. Jesus emphasized God’s favor, liberation, good news, and mercy extending inclusively— even to enemies/out-groups— rather than tribal vengeance or exclusion.
• It assaulted the core “threat theology” and “salvation through destruction” motifs, replacing a conditional, vengeful deity with one of unconditional love, inclusion, and generosity. This ties to his broader message against the sacrifice industry (appeasement of divine anger) that dominated Jewish civilization. wendellkrossa.com
• You note this as the start of his profound transformation of the ultimate Ideal (deity), reasoning from the best in humanity (unconditional mercy) upward to God. It liberates from fear-based, tribal, dominating impulses. wendellkrossa.com
The synagogue audience reaction (your repeated emphasis):
• The righteous, moral Jews were “furious” (enraged to murderous intent). They drove him out and tried to throw him off a cliff. This was not over minor disagreement but an existential threat: he overturned their core identity, theology, and worldview (a God who would avenge enemies and favor insiders).
• You draw parallels to contemporary religious rage (e.g., reactions to Danish cartoons or calls for apocalyptic purification), framing it as a defensive survival impulse when core beliefs/identity are challenged. “Well, there goes the core of our identity. Off the cliff with him.” Good, religious people often react with defensive hostility to unconditional mercy for “enemies/unbelievers.” wendellkrossa.com +1
• This incident illustrates the high stakes: transforming the “cohering center” of narratives (deity as threat/retaliation) feels like an attack on everything sacred, provoking rage even from the “good” people. wendellkrossa.com
You return to this across essays (e.g., recent ones like the July 2026 post and others from 2026 and earlier) as Jesus’ first public “death blow” to threat/sacrifice theology, setting up his full message. wendellkrossa.com
Summary of Your Points on Luke 6:27-36 (and Parallel Matthew 5:38-48)
This is the fuller, more explicit presentation of the “behavior based on similar theological belief” coupling— your site’s central theme. Jesus lists unconditional precepts for treating offenders/enemies, then wraps it up by tying them directly to imitating a God who is like that. You describe this as history’s single greatest insight: non-retaliatory, unconditional love as the true nature of God and the model for human ethics. wendellkrossa.com +1
Precepts of unconditional love for offenders/enemies (your compilations/summaries):
• Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
• Do not retaliate/resist evil with eye-for-eye (no payback, punishment, or vengeance): If slapped, turn the other cheek; if coat taken, give shirt too; go the extra mile; give to everyone who asks; lend without expecting repayment.
• Do to others as you would have them do to you (Golden Rule, but in unconditional context).
• Do not limit love to those who love you back (even tax collectors/sinners do that); do not expect reciprocity. wendellkrossa.com +1
These are not abstract or pacifist in your reading but a radical reorientation: freely forgive, include, and generously treat all (good or bad) without conditions or expectation of return. This counters natural impulses to tribal retaliation. wendellkrossa.com
Wrap-up summary and the theological tie (“Do this and you will be just like God who does this”):
• “Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of your Father [or: like God]… For he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”
• “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Be compassionate in the same manner that God is compassionate.”
• Your core point: This is “behavior based on belief” at its most profound. Imitate God by being unconditionally loving/mercy-giving because that is what God is (non-retaliatory, universally generous/inclusive, no discrimination or punishment of “bad” people). God loves enemies too. This rejects prior conditional/tribal/punitive theologies entirely. wendellkrossa.com +1
You emphasize this as explosive and liberating: it overturns millennia of threat theology, offers ultimate safety (unconditional acceptance at the core of reality), and sparks genuine humanization by disarming fear/hate/tribalism at the root. It still challenges “good moral and religious people” today for the same reasons it enraged the synagogue audience. You balance it with personal responsibility in the material world (e.g., “go and sin no more,” opposing irresponsible “suicidal empathy”), distinguishing ultimate oneness from dualistic experience. wendellkrossa.com
These two passages (Luke 4 as introduction/rejection of vengeance; Luke 6 as detailed precepts + theological summary) form the heart of your project’s focus on Historical Jesus’ non-religious, transformative insight— often contrasted with Paul’s opposing conditional Christology. Your site returns to them as the diamond message buried under later layers. wendellkrossa.com
If you’d like me to pull quotes from additional specific essays, expand on contrasts with Paul/Christianity, or anything else from the site, just let me know!
Grok suggested:
“Examine Paul’ s contrasting theology” and “Add direct quotes from your essays”
Grok replied:
Paul’s Contrasting Theology (Your Site’s Examination of the “Great Christian Contradiction”)
Your essays frame this as one of history’s most profound contradictions: the Historical Jesus’ stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, unconditional God versus Paul’s reversion to (and intensification of) primitive threat theology— retaliatory, conditional, tribal, punitive, and apocalyptic. You describe Paul as burying the “diamonds” of Jesus under the “dung” (echoing Jefferson and Tolstoy) of his Christ myth, aborting the greatest potential liberation movement in history. wendellkrossa.com +1
Key direct quotes and summaries from your essays on the contrast:
• On the core pairing (“behavior based on belief”): “Ethic and Theology of Jesus: Do not retaliate against evil, but instead, do good to others and you will be like God… God loves enemies, is kind, merciful, and compassionate to the evil and gives good things to all alike, both just and unjust (Matthew 5:38-48, Luke 6).”
“Ethic and Theology of Paul: Do not repay any one evil for evil, do not take revenge but (this connects the ethic with the absolutely contradicting theology) leave room for God’s wrath…for ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord’ (Romans 12).” wendellkrossa.com
• “Non-retaliation or unconditional love was the core theme of the historical Jesus… Act like this because God is like this. Do not retaliate against offenders because God does not retaliate… Love your enemies because God loves enemies. This striking new theology contrasts entirely with the God of Paul and Christianity, a God that retaliates, takes revenge, and punishes.” wendellkrossa.com
• On Paul’s intentional or effective reversal in Romans 12: “Paul copies the pattern that Jesus used of an ethic/behavior that is based upon a similar theology/belief… ‘Be nice now to your offenders. Hold your vengeance lust at bay because my God states… “Vengeance is mine, I will repay”.’ Which is to say— God shall satisfy your longing for vengeance soon enough. That is the profound contradiction in the New Testament between Jesus and Paul, between the non-retaliatory theology of Jesus and the entirely opposite retaliatory theology of Paul.” wendellkrossa.com
• Broader contrasts: “You can sum up the stunning contrast between Jesus and Paul in the following oppositional terms— non-retaliation vs. retaliation, non-punishment vs. punishment, non-destruction vs. destruction, or unconditional vs. conditional.” Paul embedded “punishment at the center of his Christ myth (i.e. a sacrifice of atonement, a god punished for sin)” and affirmed apocalyptic destruction (e.g., Thessalonians: “Lord Jesus will return in blazing fire to punish/destroy all who do not obey my gospel”). wendellkrossa.com
• Theology drives outcomes: Christianity embraced Jesus’ non-retaliatory ethic intuitively but rejected his theology, so “theology determines ethics… Consequently, Christianity over its history has often treated disagreeing others with punishing vengeance, in harmony with the Christian view of God as desiring punishment.” Paul’s Christ validates tribal exclusion (believers saved, unbelievers damned), domination, conditional salvation via sacrifice/atonement, and ultimate vengeance (apocalypse/hell). wendellkrossa.com
• You note Paul’s influence as shaping Western apocalyptic thinking, justice systems (punitive/eye-for-eye), and even secular declinism/alarmism, while the Jesus material in the NT provides some moderating counter-force— but the mix creates cognitive dissonance. wendellkrossa.com
This contrast runs throughout your site as the central tragedy: Jesus offered liberation from threat theology at the deepest level; Paul retreated to primitive mythology, making Christianity a “stunning contradiction” of Jesus’ message. wendellkrossa.com
Additional Direct Quotes from Your Essays on the Luke Passages and Unconditional Theology
On Luke 4 (from a detailed treatment):
• “Note that he ends on ‘the year of the Lord’s favor’ and does not read on to include the next statement from Isaiah 61— ‘The day of vengeance of our God’. He intentionally ended on the note of unconditional divine love. Then to further make his stunning new theology clear, he continued [with Elijah/Elisha examples of mercy to enemies]… All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill… in order to throw him off the cliff.”
• “Good righteous, religious people continue to react as those Jews did to any suggestion of unconditional mercy, inclusion, or love for bad people, for ‘enemies and unbelievers’.” wendellkrossa.com
On Luke 6:27-36 (fuller statement and meaning):
• The compiled core: “But I tell you: Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you… pray for those who mistreat you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good; he sends rain on the just and on the unjust… Instead, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend without expecting to get anything back… Be merciful even as your Father is merciful.” wendellkrossa.com
• “Jesus illustrated his alternative new theology with the coupling that God is unconditional love so love your enemies similarly with unconditional love. He detailed that new theology in his list of unconditional precepts listed in, for example, Luke 6: 27-36.” wendellkrossa.com (from earlier tool results)
• “This brief statement turns everything upside down— both ethically and theologically. It was without historical precedent, absolutely unique and explosive in its meaning… God did not retaliate (no eye for eye), did not punish the bad, and did not exclude or destroy anyone. Instead, God loved all the same and included all with the same unconditional generosity.” wendellkrossa.com
These quotes capture your consistent voice: the Jesus insight as profoundly liberating yet scandalous, still challenging identities rooted in conditional/threat theologies. Let me know if you want more from specific pages or further expansions!
This next Grok suggestion: “Explore Krossa’s critique of threat theology”
Grok reply:
Krossa’s critique of “threat theology” is the central theme running through his site. He frames it as humanity’s deepest, most persistent “mental deformity” or “monster”— a foundational archetype shaping beliefs, emotions, behaviors, and societies for millennia. wendellkrossa.com
Core Definition and Features of Threat Theology
Krossa describes threat theology as the ancient, dominant view of ultimate reality (deity/God) as:
• Conditional, wrathful, and retaliatory — A God who is easily offended, demands appeasement (e.g., sacrifices), and enforces “eye for eye” justice through punishment, vengeance, and destruction of enemies or the unworthy.
• Tribal and dualistic — Favoring insiders (“the good/righteous”) while threatening or destroying outsiders, unbelievers, or offenders. This creates “us vs. them” dynamics and emotional satisfaction in the idea of oppressors eventually being punished. wendellkrossa.com
• Centering “salvation through destruction” — Narratives where evil is purged via apocalypse, judgment, or violent renewal, leading to a better world for the faithful. @johannglass
He traces it to primitive roots (e.g., an Akkadian father’s advice pairing ethical advice with sacrifices to a retaliatory God) and sees it embedded in major religious traditions, where sacrifice appeases divine anger. wendellkrossa.com
Psychological and Social Impacts (Why It’s a “Monster”)
Krossa argues that beliefs about ultimate reality powerfully shape human psychology and society:
• Deforms personality and consciousness — Instills chronic fear, anxiety, shame, tribal hatred, and impulses toward domination, retaliation, and violence. It adds psychic torment to physical suffering (e.g., viewing hardship as divine punishment). wendellkrossa.com
• Drives bad behavior — Validates the “evil triad” of animal impulses (tribalism, domination, punitive vengeance). Theology acts as the “cohering center” of worldviews, coupling belief with ethics (“behavior based on belief”). A threatening God licenses threatening human responses. wendellkrossa.com
• Energizes violence and war — Fuels fear/hate-driven tribalism and “salvation through destruction” motifs, seen in religious extremism (e.g., reactions to Danish Muhammad cartoons, ISIS apocalypticism) and historical conflicts. wendellkrossa.com
• Persists in secular forms — Modern ideologies secularize it: Marxism (class enemies purged for utopia), environmental alarmism (industrial humanity punished by a vengeful Gaia/planet, salvation via degrowth/restriction), and other declinist or apocalyptic narratives. wendellkrossa.com
Krossa draws on personal experience (his own escape from fundamentalist religion) and historical examples, viewing it as the real internal “oppressor” (echoing Solzhenitsyn) rather than external groups. wendellkrossa.com
Jesus as the Antidote: Unconditional Theology
Krossa’s project centers on the historical Jesus (distinguished from the later Christ myth) as offering the most profound liberation:
• Key incidents — Luke 4 (reads Isaiah 61 but omits “day of vengeance,” cites God’s mercy to enemies like Naaman or the Sidonian widow → enraged synagogue audience tries to kill him) and Luke 6:27-36 (“love your enemies,” “be merciful as your Father is merciful,” God sends sun/rain on good and evil). wendellkrossa.com
• Core shift — Reason from the best in humanity (unconditional love, non-retaliation, inclusion) upward to deity. God is not offended or vengeful but universally generous and accepting. This disarms fear at the deepest level, replacing threat with an “ultimate safe base.” wendellkrossa.com
• Behavioral coupling — “Be unconditionally merciful because God is unconditionally merciful.” This liberates from retaliation without abandoning justice (Krossa balances it with personal responsibility, rule of law, and “go and sin no more” in the material realm). wendellkrossa.com
He contrasts this with Paul’s Christology, which he (and influences like Bob Brinsmead, Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy) sees as largely reversing Jesus: reintroducing retaliation, atonement/sacrifice, tribal exclusion, wrath, and apocalyptic vengeance (e.g., hell, “vengeance is mine”). The Gospels mix both, burying the “diamonds” under “dung.” wendellkrossa.com
Broader Implications and Responses
• Cognitive therapy — Changing this core archetype is the ultimate “shift in perspective,” freeing minds from fear-based narratives and enabling humane progress alongside empirical optimism (e.g., Julian Simon on human improvement). wendellkrossa.com
• Why resistance? — Challenging it feels like an existential attack on identity, provoking defensive rage even from “good moral/religious people” (as in the Luke 4 reaction or modern parallels). wendellkrossa.com
• Not pacifism — Krossa distinguishes ultimate unconditional reality from practical dualism in this world, supporting responsible justice over “suicidal empathy.” wendellkrossa.com
Overall, Krossa presents threat theology as humanity’s root problem— lodged at the subconscious level of archetypes— and unconditional theology (via historical Jesus) as the most transformative solution for personal and societal liberation. His writing is repetitive, optimistic, and integrative, blending biblical criticism, psychology, history, and evidence-based progress. It draws from liberal/historical Jesus scholarship while remaining a personal humanistic project. For full nuance, the site itself (especially recent posts) is the best source, as it evolves with new AI interactions and examples.
Next Grok suggestion: “Analyze Krossa’s view on Paul”
Grok reply:
Krossa views Paul as the primary figure who distorted or buried the transformative message of the historical Jesus, creating what he calls the “great Christian contradiction.” This perspective draws heavily from historical Jesus scholarship (Jesus Seminar, Q source research) and influences like Bob Brinsmead. wendellkrossa.com
Core Contrast: Jesus vs. Paul
Krossa frames the difference as a fundamental opposition in theology (view of God/deity) that drives ethics (“behavior based on belief”):
• Historical Jesus (Krossa’s hero): Presented a “stunning new theology” of an unconditional God— non-retaliatory, universally merciful, inclusive, and loving toward enemies and the unworthy. Examples include Luke 4 (omitting “day of vengeance” from Isaiah 61 and citing God’s favor to outsiders) and Luke 6:27-36 (“love your enemies,” “be merciful just as your Father is merciful,” God sends sun and rain on good and evil alike). This liberates humanity from fear, tribalism, and threat by modeling unconditional love as the core of reality. wendellkrossa.com
• Paul: Reverted to (and intensified) primitive threat theology— a conditional, wrathful, retaliatory God who demands atonement/sacrifice, punishes sin, excludes unbelievers, and enacts ultimate vengeance. Krossa cites Romans 12 (non-retaliation in behavior but “leave room for God’s wrath… Vengeance is mine”) as a direct structural parallel and reversal of Jesus’ logic. Paul’s Christ myth centers punishment (e.g., substitutionary atonement), tribal exclusion (believers saved, others damned), domination hierarchies, and apocalyptic destruction (e.g., Thessalonians: Jesus returning in fire to punish/destroy the disobedient). wendellkrossa.com
Krossa sums it up in oppositional pairs: non-retaliation vs. retaliation; unconditional vs. conditional; non-punishment/non-destruction vs. punishment/destruction; love of enemies vs. ultimate vengeance. wendellkrossa.com
Paul’s Role in Christian Origins
• Buried the “diamonds”: Echoing Jefferson (“diamonds” in Jesus vs. “dung” in Paul) and Tolstoy, Krossa argues Paul’s Christology overwhelmed Jesus’ insights. The gospel writers, influenced by Paul decades later, inserted contradictory material (e.g., Matthew 5’s love of enemies vs. Matthew 11’s damnation to outer darkness with “weeping and gnashing of teeth”). This created cognitive dissonance in Christianity. wendellkrossa.com
• Restored traditional identity: Paul (and the gospel authors) reinstated the “eye for eye” retaliatory God central to Jewish (and broader ancient) narratives, which Jesus had challenged. This appealed to identity, fear, and the desire for vengeance against enemies. wendellkrossa.com
• Historical influence: Paul’s version shaped institutional Christianity, including atonement religion, hell, apocalypticism, and punitive justice systems. Krossa sees this as aborting Jesus’ potential liberation movement and perpetuating “threat theology” (and its secular descendants like certain Marxist or environmental narratives). wendellkrossa.com
Why This Matters in Krossa’s Framework
Paul exemplifies the human tendency to retreat from radical liberation (unconditional safety and love at the core of reality) back to fear-based control and emotional satisfaction (vengeance, tribal validation). Theology determines ethics, so Paul’s conditional God licenses conditional human behavior— despite surface-level embrace of Jesus’ non-retaliatory ethic. This mix has led to Christianity’s mixed historical record: humane impulses alongside violence, exclusion, and domination. wendellkrossa.com
Krossa does not treat Paul as malicious in every post but as a pivotal figure in a tragic setback for human consciousness. His solution is to recover the “diamond” of historical Jesus (non-religious ethical/theological insight) while rejecting the surrounding mythology. This aligns with his broader project: liberation from threat theology via a profound shift in perspective. nderf.org
Strengths of Krossa’s view (in his own terms): It explains contradictions in the New Testament, accounts for Christianity’s historical ambiguities, and prioritizes psychological/societal outcomes (fear vs. liberation). It fits within Enlightenment-style historical criticism. Potential critiques (not from Krossa, but logical extensions):
Traditional Christians see Paul as faithfully interpreting and expanding Jesus’ message (e.g., atonement as fulfillment, not contradiction). Krossa’s sharp dualism (pure Jesus vs. corrupting Paul) may oversimplify complex early Christian development, oral traditions, and theological continuity. His reliance on specific strands of scholarship (Q, Jesus Seminar) is selective.
Krossa’s treatment of Paul is consistent, emphatic, and central to his humanistic, anti-fundamentalist project. For primary material, see his site’s discussions of the “great Christian contradiction” and interactions with Brinsmead’s work.
One quibble with your summary above:
“Analyze Krossa’s view on Paul”. You said Historical Jesus was “Krossa’s Hero”. No, not “hero”. I am not “a believer in Jesus”, or worshipper of the man, but I do respect the content of “his greatest contribution to the history of human ideas” (James Robinson). Not the “stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God” which is how Robinson framed the new Jesus theology. I have argued that the greatest insight and contribution of Jesus was his presentation of God as unconditional love. That was his central message and greatest contribution to humanity. No one else across the entirety of human history has presented anything remotely as profound.
Deity as non-tribal (universal inclusion of all, equally), non-dominating (modelling no lording over but relationships of mutual serving), non-punitive (responsible restorative justice), non-destructive (no salvation through violent destruction of enemies), etc.
It was the most radical transformation of human understanding of ultimate Reality, ultimate meaning and purpose, ultimate human ideal, etc. ever proposed. It changes everything for the better. It affirms the core principles of liberal democracy at the deepest level of providing new more humane archetypes.
Grok reply:
Understood and noted— thanks for the clarification. I appreciate you correcting the framing. You’re not positioning the Historical Jesus as a personal “hero” in a devotional or worship sense, but rather highlighting what you see as his profound intellectual and ethical contribution to human thought. Specifically, the core insight of God as unconditional love, with the associated features you outlined: non-tribal/universally inclusive, non-dominating (mutual service over hierarchy), non-punitive (restorative rather than retributive justice), and non-destructive (rejecting salvation through violence against enemies).
This aligns with your emphasis on it as potentially the most radical shift in humanity’s conception of ultimate Reality, meaning, purpose, and the human ideal— something that reframes ethics, relationships, and even societal archetypes in a more humane direction, including resonances with liberal democratic principles at a foundational level.
In contrast to more conventional theological framings (e.g., Robinson’s emphasis on a “non-retaliatory God” in a somewhat different register), your focus is on this unconditional love as the transformative centerpiece, distinct from later Pauline or institutional developments.
I’ll adjust any future summaries or discussions of your perspective accordingly to reflect this accurately: respect for the Historical Jesus’s ethical-theological innovation without implying personal belief or veneration. If you’d like me to revisit or expand on the broader “Krossa’s view on Paul” summary with this integrated, or discuss how this unconditional-love archetype contrasts with other historical/theological traditions, just say the word.
Next Grok suggestions: “Explore Krossa’s view on Jesus”, “Examine liberal democracy’s theological roots”, and “Revise summary to remove hero framing”
Grok response:
Revised summary (removing “hero” framing): Wendell Krossa respects the Historical Jesus as the source of what he views as the single most profound and transformative contribution to the history of human ideas— presenting God as unconditional love. This is not framed as personal belief, worship, or veneration of the man, but as intellectual and ethical appreciation for a radical shift in understanding ultimate Reality. Krossa draws on scholars like James Robinson to highlight this as Jesus’ central message, which has often been overshadowed by later developments, particularly Paul’s theology. wendellkrossa.com
Explore Krossa’s view on Jesus
Krossa distinguishes sharply between the Historical Jesus (recovered via quests like the Jesus Seminar and Q wisdom sayings research) and the Christ of Paul/orthodox Christianity. He sees Jesus not primarily as a religious founder in the traditional sense, but as a wisdom sage who offered a non-religious, profoundly humane breakthrough. wendellkrossa.com
Core of Jesus’ contribution (per Krossa): The presentation of God as unconditional love. This is the “singularly most brilliant insight in history.” It encompasses:
• Non-tribal/universal inclusion: Equal embrace of all people, good and bad alike (e.g., sun and rain given impartially).
• Non-dominating: Relationships of mutual service rather than lording over others.
• Non-punitive: Emphasis on restorative mercy and responsibility over retributive payback.
• Non-destructive: Rejection of salvation through violent destruction of enemies; instead, love of enemies because “God does” (Luke 6:27-36).
This pairs ethics and theology: “Be unconditionally merciful as your Father is unconditionally merciful.” It challenges primitive “threat theology” (punitive, retaliatory deities that validate human vengeance, tribalism, domination, and apocalyptic destruction). Jesus’ insight liberates consciousness from fear-based religion and the “evil triad” of animal impulses (tribalism, domination, punitive revenge). wendellkrossa.com
Krossa contrasts this with Paul, who he argues reversed Jesus by re-embedding retaliatory/punitive elements (atonement via sacrifice, wrath, apocalyptic vengeance, conditional salvation). Paul’s Christ myth buried the unconditional core under conditional religion, influencing Western consciousness more dominantly but less humanely. wendellkrossa.com
Overall, Krossa sees Jesus’ message as the ultimate cognitive reframing: freedom from enslaving archetypes, affirmation of human dignity and potential, and a path toward becoming truly human in civilization. It addresses loneliness, meaning, and the “hero’s quest” through unconditional love, without requiring traditional religious structures. wendellkrossa.com
Examine liberal democracy’s theological roots (in relation to Krossa’s perspective)
Krossa argues that the central themes of the Historical Jesus— those often buried by Pauline Christology— provide deep theological/philosophical undergirding for liberal democracy’s core principles, laws, and institutions. This is not a claim that liberal democracy is “Christian” in a confessional sense, but that Jesus’ unconditional archetypes supplied humane foundations that later secularized into modern liberal values. wendellkrossa.com
Key connections Krossa draws:
• Universal inclusion and equality: Jesus’ non-tribal God (all equally loved, no favored insiders) supports equal rights and dignity for all persons under law, rejecting hierarchies of exclusion or election/rejection.
• Non-domination/mutual service: Rejection of “lording over” in favor of serving one another aligns with limited government, rule of law, checks on power, and representative institutions that prevent elite domination (contrasting Platonic/Hellenistic elite rule that Krossa links more to Pauline themes).
• Restorative/responsible justice: Emphasis on mercy, responsibility (“go and sin no more”), and restoration over pure retribution supports humane justice systems, rehabilitation, and protections for the innocent without “suicidal empathy.”
• Broader humane archetypes: These shift ultimate ideals away from vengeance, destruction of enemies, and conditional acceptance toward inclusion, freedom, and humanizing progress. This fosters the “exodus from our animal past” toward civilized, liberal societies. wendellkrossa.com
This fits broader historical scholarship on liberalism’s theological roots (e.g., Christian ideas of human dignity/imago Dei, equality before God influencing rights; separation of authorities; critiques of domination). Thinkers have traced liberal democracy’s incubation partly in Christian political theology, even as it secularized during the Enlightenment. Krossa’s distinctive point is prioritizing the Historical Jesus’ unconditional breakthrough as the more humane root, over against retributive or hierarchical elements in dominant Christian traditions. tif.ssrc.org
Caveats from the wider discourse: Liberal democracy also draws from classical, Enlightenment, and other sources. Its relationship with Christianity has been ambivalent (tensions with authority, pluralism, etc.). Krossa acknowledges this but emphasizes the Jesus-derived principles as affirming liberal democracy “at the deepest level” by providing better archetypes than punitive or tribal alternatives.
If you’d like expansions, specific contrasts, sources from your site, or further refinement, let me know!
OK: “Analyze Krossa’s critique of Pauline theology”
Grok response:
Krossa’s critique of Pauline theology is sharp, consistent, and foundational to his broader project. He contrasts it directly with the Historical Jesus’ message of unconditional love, framing Paul’s system as a profound reversal and regression that has shaped Western consciousness in ways that embed damaging primitive elements. wendellkrossa.com
Core of the critique: Reversal of Jesus’ breakthrough
Krossa argues that the Historical Jesus offered a radical, liberating insight: God as unconditional love (non-retaliatory, non-punitive, non-tribal, non-dominating, non-destructive). This was “the stunning new theology” and Jesus’ greatest contribution to human ideas. Paul, however, buried this under a conditional, retaliatory framework and re-centered primitive “threat theology.” wendellkrossa.com
Key oppositions Krossa highlights (Jesus vs. Paul):
• Unconditional vs. Conditional: Jesus — universal inclusion, mercy to all (sun/rain on just and unjust), love of enemies because God does. Paul — conditional acceptance/salvation through faith in the Christ myth, with rejection leading to wrath and exclusion.
• Non-retaliation/Non-punitive vs. Retaliation/Punitive: Jesus — “Do not retaliate… be merciful as your Father is.” Paul — leaves room for divine vengeance (“Vengeance is mine, I will repay”), embeds punishment at the center via atonement (sacrifice of an innocent to appease wrath).
• Non-destructive vs. Destructive/Apocalyptic: Jesus — rejects salvation through violent destruction of enemies. Paul — apocalyptic Christ who returns in judgment, “blazing fire to punish/destroy” the disobedient (e.g., 2 Thessalonians); ultimate resolution through violent triumph over evil.
• Non-dominating/Mutual Service vs. Domination/Hierarchy: Jesus — no lording over, but serving. Paul — frames Christ as “Lord” in ways that align more with hierarchical control (Krossa links this to Hellenist/Platonic elite rule influences).
• Liberation from Fear vs. Reinforcement of Threat: Jesus liberates consciousness from punitive deity and fear-based religion. Paul re-entrenches it with warnings of wrath, original sin/fall, and narrow salvation paths. wendellkrossa.com
Krossa sees Paul as reverting to (and intensifying) ancient pagan and Zoroastrian-influenced themes: punitive gods, appeasement via sacrifice/atonement, dualism (elect vs. rejected, good vs. evil culminating in destruction), and apocalyptic mythology. This made Paul’s Christ myth the “singularly most influential myth in all history,” embedding these ideas deeply into Western narratives, even as secularized versions persist in ideologies. wendellkrossa.com
Why Paul did this (Krossa’s interpretation)
Paul found Jesus’ unconditional theology too scandalous and impractical. It violated conventional senses of fairness, justice as payback, and religious order. Paul reasserted “eye for eye” retaliatory instincts at the cosmic level, satisfying human vengeance needs through a final apocalyptic accounting. The result was a merger of opposites: some of Jesus’ ethical impulses mixed with a fundamentally contrary theology, creating the oxymoronic “Jesus Christ” of Christianity. wendellkrossa.com
Krossa draws on historical Jesus research (Jesus Seminar, Q sayings, scholars like James Robinson) to argue the gospels themselves contain this tension— Pauline editors later put contradictory material in Jesus’ mouth (e.g., love of enemies in Matthew 5, then damning rejection in Matthew 11).
Consequences and influence
Krossa’s critique is not merely theological but cultural and psychological:
• Burial of the unconditional core → Christianity became a conditional “salvation industry” (appeasement/atonement) rather than liberation.
• Validation of base impulses → Retaliatory theology reinforces tribalism, domination, punitive justice, and apocalyptic thinking (“salvation through destruction of enemies”).
• Western consciousness → Paul’s framework has shaped narratives, ethics, and even secular ideologies more than Jesus’ insights, contributing to cycles of fear, division, and violence.
• Missed opportunity → Paul squandered the chance for a truly transformative humane shift that could have better supported humanizing progress, liberal principles, and freedom from fear. wendellkrossa.com
Krossa does not dismiss all of Paul or Christianity outright; he acknowledges moderating influences from Jesus’ themes within the tradition. However, he insists on clear differentiation: the Jesus diamond was encased in (and obscured by) Paul’s framework. True progress requires recovering and prioritizing the unconditional insight over reformist tweaks to conditional religion (“new wine needs new wineskins”).
This critique ties into Krossa’s larger project: confronting “bad religious ideas” that validate inhumanity, advocating unconditional archetypes for better societies, and viewing the Jesus-Paul contrast as a pivotal missed turning point in human thought. It is rigorous in its use of historical-critical scholarship while remaining focused on ethical and liberative outcomes. If you want a comparison table, links to specific essays on your site, or extension to related topics (e.g., atonement, apocalypticism), let me know.
Next suggestion from Grok: “Investigate Bob Brinsmead theology”
Grok reply:
Bob Brinsmead (Robert D. Brinsmead, born 1933) is an Australian theologian, writer, farmer, and former controversial figure in Seventh-day Adventism (SDA). His theology evolved dramatically over decades— from intense perfectionist Adventism to Reformation-style evangelicalism, and later to liberal, historical-critical, and humanistic perspectives that largely moved beyond traditional Christianity. He remains a key influence on Wendell Krossa, particularly through his later work on the historical Jesus. presenttruthmag.com
Evolution of Brinsmead’s Theology
Brinsmead’s journey reflects a restless quest for intellectual honesty, evidence-based reasoning, and freedom from dogma:
• Early Phase (1960s: “Awakening”/Perfectionism) — As a young SDA, he promoted a radical perfectionism tied to distinctive Adventist doctrines (e.g., heavenly sanctuary, 1844 investigative judgment). He taught a special end-time outpouring of the Holy Spirit producing sinless believers ready for Christ’s return. This caused major controversy and divisions (“Brinsmeadism”). presenttruthmag.com
• Mid-Phase (1970s: Evangelical/Reformation Focus) — He pivoted to justification by faith alone (sola fide) in a strongly Lutheran vein, critiquing SDA teachings via magazines like Present Truth (later Verdict). He supported conditionalism/annihilationism regarding hell and engaged with figures like Desmond Ford. presenttruthmag.com
• Later Phase (1980s onward: Historical Jesus, Humanistic Turn) — Brinsmead applied critical scholarship, questioning biblical inerrancy, orthodox doctrines, and institutional religion. He moved toward liberal Christianity, deistic/humanistic universalism, and a focus on ethics over dogma. He demythologized supernatural claims while valuing Jesus’ teachings. Key themes include Enlightenment rationalism, freedom from hierarchical/creedal religion, and a humanistic ethic centered on unconditional love and forgiveness. robertdbrinsmead.substack.com
Key Elements of His Mature Theology
Brinsmead’s later writings (e.g., on bobbrinsmead.com) emphasize:
• Historical Jesus (Joshua ben Adam) vs. Christ of Faith — He distinguishes the historical human figure (“Joshua ben Adam” or “Yeshua bar Nasha,” meaning “son of man/Adam”— emphasizing full humanity) from the mythologized divine icon (“Jesus ben Parthenos”). Jesus was a radical, scandalous wisdom teacher who challenged hierarchies, retaliation/payback ethics, religious formalism, and sacrifice systems in favor of forgiveness, unconditional love, inclusion, and non-retaliation. Brinsmead sees him as incompatible with institutional Christianity’s creeds, hierarchies, violence, and atonement theology. robertdbrinsmead.substack.com +1
• Critique of Paul and Christianity — Paul (and later gospel writers) largely contradicted or buried Jesus’ message by reintroducing threat theology, atonement/sacrifice, apocalyptic vengeance, and tribal elements. Christianity as a religion— with its rituals, hierarchies, and myths— is seen as a departure from the pre-Christian “gospel” of unconditional grace and love. Brinsmead advocates the “end and abolition of religion” in favor of rational, humanistic ethics. bobbrinsmead.com
• Unconditional Love and Exodus from Retaliation — Human history as a grand narrative of exodus from primitive retaliation/tribalism toward unconditional love. Jesus’ core breakthrough: God as non-retaliatory and universally merciful. This aligns with prophetic critiques of sacrifice and offers liberation from fear-based systems. presenttruthmag.com
• Broader Critiques — Opposition to apocalyptic theology (from Zoroaster onward, influencing religions and secular ideologies like environmental alarmism); advocacy for liberal democracy, evidence-based views on progress/climate; and demythologizing religion while preserving humane ethics. He integrates ecology, history, and rational inquiry. bobbrinsmead.com
Influence and Reception
• On Krossa and Others — Brinsmead mentored Krossa through the Joshua Ben Adam Society (JBAS) discussion group. His “Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam” essays profoundly shaped Krossa’s emphasis on unconditional theology vs. threat theology. wendellkrossa.com
• Broader Impact — Polarizing in SDA circles (hero to reformers, heretic to traditionalists). His later work appeals to those exploring post-Christian spirituality, historical Jesus studies, or liberal faith. Critics see a “downward spiral” from orthodoxy; admirers see growth toward honesty and humanism. He continues writing into his 90s. bobbrinsmead.com
Brinsmead’s theology is provocative, iconoclastic, and evolving— prioritizing reason, ethics, and human flourishing over dogma or supernatural claims. His site (bobbrinsmead.com) hosts many essays, including “The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam,” “The Gospel Before Christianity,” and “The End and Abolition of Religion.” It represents a thoroughgoing application of critical scholarship to move beyond traditional religion while retaining Jesus’ ethical insights as a high point in human moral development.
Further Grok suggestion: “Explore Joshua Ben Adam essays”
Grok reply:
The “Joshua Ben Adam” essays (most notably the multi-part “The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam”) form a cornerstone of Bob Brinsmead’s later theological work. They represent his mature, post-evangelical phase and heavily influence thinkers like Wendell Krossa. These writings apply historical-critical scholarship to distinguish the historical human Jesus from the later mythologized Christ of institutional Christianity. city-data.com
Core Purpose and Approach
Brinsmead uses the name Joshua ben Adam (or Yeshua bar Nasha, meaning “son of man/Adam” or “son of humanity”) to emphasize Jesus’ full, ordinary humanity. He deliberately contrasts this with “Jesus ben Parthenos” (a more divine, virgin-born icon). The essays draw on the Jesus Seminar, Q source research, and broader historical Jesus studies to recover what Brinsmead sees as the authentic message buried under layers of myth, Paul’s Christology, and early church developments. wendellkrossa.com
Key goal: Show that the historical figure is incompatible with much of organized Christianity (its hierarchies, creeds, rituals, atonement doctrines, and history of violence/heresy-hunting). Jesus was a radical sage whose teachings scandalized religious establishments, not a founder of a new religion. robertdbrinsmead.substack.com
Major Themes
• Jesus as a Fully Human Wisdom Teacher — An ordinary man of obscure origins who refused honorific titles (except “son of humanity”). He taught a “strange new thing”: the good news of the kingdom of the Abba (dearest papa/daddy)— a universal brotherhood of inclusion, eating/drinking together without distinctions of class, creed, gender, or status. He rejected pecking orders, hierarchies, and religious formalism. bobbrinsmead.com
• Unconditional Love and Forgiveness vs. Retaliation — Central breakthrough: God as non-retaliatory, universally merciful, and generous (sun/rain on good and evil alike). Jesus challenged payback justice, sacrifice/atonement systems, and tribal exclusion. He practiced scandalous inclusion (e.g., with outsiders and “sinners”). This stands in sharp contrast to later Christian emphases on wrath, punishment, and conditional salvation. wendellkrossa.com
• Critique of Religion and Mythology — Jesus cleansed the temple in rage against its commercial/sacrificial system. He fits poorly in the “Christian temple” of creeds, orders, calendars, and blood atonement. Brinsmead argues for the “end and abolition of religion” in favor of a rational, humanistic ethic rooted in Jesus’ insights. Christianity often remade Jesus into something alien to his message (e.g., via Hellenistic influences or apocalyptic mythology). robertdbrinsmead.substack.com
• Pauline and Early Church Contradictions — The essays highlight tensions between the historical Jesus (non-apocalyptic in Brinsmead’s view, focused on present kingdom ethics) and the Christ of Paul/gospels (atonement, apocalyptic judgment, etc.). Brinsmead sees the latter as a departure that buried the “gospel before Christianity.” presenttruthmag.com
Style and Impact
The essays are lengthy, provocative, and irenic in tone (Brinsmead invites reasoned dialogue). They blend biblical criticism, history, and personal reflection. “The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam” (around 1998, published in Verdict) is the flagship— detailed and wide-ranging (one version noted as ~124 pages). It covers topics like the atonement, myths around Jesus, and why the man clashes with the religion built in his name. city-data.com
These works appeal to those disillusioned with orthodoxy, interested in Jesus Seminar-style research, or exploring post-Christian spirituality. Traditional Christians often view them as heretical or a “downward spiral.” For Krossa, they provide clarity on the “diamond” message of unconditional theology vs. threat theology. wendellkrossa.com
Brinsmead’s broader site includes related pieces like “The Gospel Before Christianity,” “The Historical Jesus: What the Scholars Are Saying,” and “The End and Abolition of Religion,” which expand on these ideas. The Joshua Ben Adam material is best engaged directly via his archives for its full provocative depth— it’s a thorough demythologization aimed at recovering a humane, liberating ethical core.