I have previously asked: “Grok, could you please summarize the main themes on this site for visitors, to give them some sense of what topics/issues they will find covered here?”
Now: Grok, could you please summarize the main points in this essay just below (linked):
“The Christ myth buried the singularly profound insight of Historical Jesus. The project to recover that insight involves ‘separating diamonds from dung’ (Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy)”, Wendell Krossa
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=8664
I give a lot of space here to this “greatest contradiction in religious history”, and most likely the singularly greatest contradiction in all of human history. The opposing sides of this contradiction illustrate the two great alternatives offered to dominate human belief systems. One- i.e. the stunning new God of Jesus- takes theology to its highest understanding of ultimate good and love in the feature of unconditional. The other- Paul’s Christology- takes theology back to its primitive past of deity as tribal, dominating, punitively destroying.
Paul elevates these primitive features of past theology to new supremacy in his Christ as the universal Godman Savior for all history and all humanity. To combine these two entire opposites in one entity- i.e. “Jesus Christ”- has left many Christian believers with cognitive dissonance from holding two entirely opposite messages in one person.
Paul’s Christ also illustrates the religious tradition of cloaking bad as good, even as divine.
Again, the Harold Ellens point, quoted in Zenon Lotufo’s “Cruel God, Kind God”. What is claimed by Paul as the highest manifestation of divine goodness and love, i.e. the self-giving love of Paul’s Christ in offering himself as the cosmic sacrifice for all humanity’s sin, is exposed by Ellens as the barbarity of child sacrifice. It’s a kind of blunt assessment from Ellens but the questions is- Is what he states, true?
“Ellens goes on by stating that the crucifixion, a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’. Such a metaphor of an angry God, who cannot forgive unless appeased by a bloody sacrifice, has been ‘right at the center of the Master Story of the Western world for the last 2,000 years. And the unavoidable consequence for the human mind is a strong tendency to use violence’.”
Grok response:
Main points of Wendell Krossa’s essay “The Christ myth buried the singularly profound insight of Historical Jesus” (with the Jefferson/Tolstoy “diamonds from dung” framing):
Krossa argues that Christianity’s central figure— “Jesus Christ”— embodies a profound and damaging contradiction. The historical Jesus (reconstructed especially via Q Wisdom Sayings research) offered a revolutionary, humane insight about God and ethics that was largely buried by Paul’s Christ myth, which reimposed primitive, conditional religious ideas. This merger creates ongoing cognitive dissonance for believers and has shaped Western thought in harmful ways. wendellkrossa.com
Core Contrast: Historical Jesus vs. Paul’s Christ
• Historical Jesus’ “stunning new theology”: God is unconditional love— no conditions, no prerequisites. Key themes include unlimited forgiveness and inclusion (e.g., sun and rain given to both good and bad), non-retaliatory justice (rejecting “eye for eye”), and enemy love because that is how God acts (Matthew 5/Luke 6). No blood sacrifice or payment is demanded before forgiveness (e.g., the Prodigal Son’s father). This overturns millennia of “threat theology” (angry, punishing deities). Krossa sees this as history’s single greatest insight into ultimate reality as “no conditions.” wendellkrossa.com
• Paul’s Christ myth: Highly conditional salvation. It requires appeasement of an angry deity via blood sacrifice (central to atonement), faith in Christ as a necessary condition for inclusion (tribal exclusion of unbelievers), and ultimate retaliation/punishment (apocalypse, hell). This elevates primitive features— tribal deity, domination, punitive destruction— to universal supremacy. Paul’s version became dominant and shaped the New Testament canon. wendellkrossa.com
The result is an oxymoron (“Jesus Christ”) holding irreconcilable opposites: unconditional love mixed with conditional threat, forgiveness with cosmic sacrifice/violence. The “nasty elements” distort or bury the better ones, like new wine in rotten wineskins. Jefferson and Tolstoy described Paul’s additions as “dung” burying Jesus’ “diamonds/pearls.” wendellkrossa.com
Broader Implications
• Cognitive dissonance and violence: Merging opposites causes psychological strain. Harold Ellens (via Zenon Lotufo) is cited: the crucifixion as “child sacrifice/infanticide” disguised as supreme grace has centered a violent “Master Story” in the West for 2,000 years, fostering tendencies toward violence. Paul cloaks primitive barbarity as divine goodness. wendellkrossa.com
• Theology from humanity upward: Krossa does not treat Jesus (or scripture) as ultimate authority. Unconditional love is self-validating as the best of human experience (seen in ordinary parents, spouses, friends). Theology should start from the best of humanity and project it onto Ultimate Reality (transcendent love), not derive ethics from holy texts that demand conditions. This affirms equal “incarnation” of the divine/human spirit in all people— no special incarnation in one figure. wendellkrossa.com
• End of religion as we know it: A truly unconditional God eliminates the need for religion’s conditions (rituals, right beliefs, sacrifices, believer/unbeliever divides, mediating priesthoods, threats of judgment). People are free to author their own meaningful stories. wendellkrossa.com
• Historical and cultural impact: Paul’s apocalyptic Christ myth perpetuated destructive “threat” and decline narratives into Western consciousness, influencing later declinism and modern alarmism (e.g., environmental apocalypticism). It validates punitive justice, domination, and vengeance by appealing to a retaliatory deity. Historical Jesus research (Jesus Seminar, etc.) and early Christian diversity (suppressed gospels) show how Paul’s Gentile version triumphed over other strands. wendellkrossa.com
Overall thesis: Recovering the “diamonds” of unconditional love requires separating them from the “dung” of conditional Christ mythology. This shift— from conditional, tribal, punitive deity to no-conditions love— would transform theology, ethics, justice, and human narratives away from fear, exclusion, and violence toward inclusion, freedom, and humane ideals. Krossa frames this as a project to liberate the singularly profound insight of Jesus that Paul’s influential myth buried. wendellkrossa.com
The essay fits Krossa’s broader site themes: critiquing inherited “primitive” myths (apocalyptic, punitive God, conditional salvation) in favor of an unconditional human spirit and “no conditions” ultimate reality.
Also-
Grok, please summarize the main points in this related list that highlights the main differences between Jesus’ message and Paul’s Christ:
“Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ (updated 2025)”, Wendell Krossa
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=14451
Grok reply:
Summary of Wendell Krossa’s “Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ (updated 2025)”
This page/post (part of Krossa’s larger site project) presents a concise, updated list of core oppositions between the message of the Historical Jesus (drawn especially from Q Wisdom Sayings research and passages like Matthew 5/Luke 6) and Paul’s Christ mythology. Krossa frames these as illustrating the “greatest contradiction” or oxymoron in Christian history (“Jesus Christ”), where Paul’s conditional, primitive themes buried Jesus’ unconditional insights. Mixing them creates cognitive dissonance, distorts the humane elements, and has shaped Western consciousness toward fear, tribalism, and apocalyptic thinking. wendellkrossa.com
Key Contradictions (Main List from the Essay)
Krossa highlights these oppositions (paraphrased and grouped for clarity):
1. Unconditional vs. Conditional
• Jesus: Unconditional love and forgiveness— no sacrifice, payment, or preconditions required for inclusion/salvation (e.g., Prodigal Son; sun/rain given to good and bad alike).
• Paul: Highly conditional atonement— requires blood sacrifice of the cosmic Christ, faith/belief in the myth, and other religious conditions (e.g., Romans). wendellkrossa.com
2. Non-Retaliation vs. Retaliation
• Jesus: Rejects “eye for eye” justice; urges love of enemies because God does not retaliate (“Be merciful just as God is merciful”). Non-apocalyptic.
• Paul: Affirms divine retaliation and vengeance (“Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” quoting OT); includes apocalyptic return of Christ in fiery destruction of unbelievers (e.g., Thessalonians). wendellkrossa.com
3. Restorative vs. Punitive/Destroying Justice
• Jesus: Restorative approach focused on love and inclusion of offenders.
• Paul: Punitive— everlasting destruction for unbelievers; hell and final judgment. wendellkrossa.com
4. Nonviolent vs. Violent Resolution
• Jesus: Nonviolent resolution of conflicts.
• Paul/Christ myth: Violent destruction via apocalypse, fiery hell, and the violent blood sacrifice for atonement (framed as “murder the right person to make things better”). wendellkrossa.com
5. Non-Tribal Inclusion vs. Tribal Exclusion
• Jesus: Universal inclusion of all humanity.
• Paul: Tribal favoritism for true believers; exclusion/damnation of unbelievers (eternal heaven/hell divide, echoing Zoroastrian dualism). wendellkrossa.com
6. Non-Domination vs. Domination
• Jesus: Anti-domination (“If you want to be great, serve others”; rejects lordship over others).
• Paul’s Christ: Ultimate eternal domination— “Lord Christ” ruling with a “rod of iron,” every knee shall bow, totalitarian submission. wendellkrossa.com
7. Non-Dualism/Oneness vs. Eternal Dualism
• Jesus: Points toward God as oneness/ultimate love; implies no fundamental separation of humanity from the divine (all equally indwelt by the God spirit).
• Paul: Cosmic dualism (God vs. Satan, heaven vs. hell, believers vs. unbelievers). wendellkrossa.com
8. Ordinary Human vs. Divine Godman
• Jesus: Refers to himself as “son of man”— an ordinary, imperfect human like others; rejects being called “good” (only God is good).
• Paul: Reconstructs Jesus as a special Hellenist-style godman sent from heaven (virgin birth, sinless, divine), later elevated to full deity/Trinity member— rejecting common humanness. wendellkrossa.com
Overarching Points
• Cognitive Dissonance and Burial of Insights: You cannot coherently merge such opposites. The primitive, fear-based elements in Paul’s Christology dominate and distort Jesus’ “stunning new theology” of a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God. Jefferson and Tolstoy’s “diamonds buried in dung” metaphor is referenced again. wendellkrossa.com
• Broader Impact: Paul’s version has been far more influential historically (per scholars like James Tabor), embedding apocalyptic fear, punitive justice, and domination into Western narratives. Jesus’ themes have only moderated these somewhat.
• Good vs. Evil Framing: Krossa uses the contrasts to illustrate the “true nature of good and bad”— Jesus’ features (non-tribal, non-dominating, unconditional love) as pointing to ultimate Good; Paul’s (tribal, dominating, conditional, retaliatory) as pointing to bad/evil. This ties into the site’s anti-fear, anti-domination, and anti-apocalyptic project. wendellkrossa.com
The list serves as a tool for “separating diamonds from dung” and recovering the liberating potential of unconditional love as the core of humane theology and ethics. It aligns closely with the previous essay you shared, expanding the contradiction theme with this bullet-point overview. For the full context and updates, the original page provides surrounding discussion on fear-mongering, apocalyptic myths, and related cultural critiques.
Continuing with Grok’s suggestions: “Explore Q Source wisdom sayings” and “Investigate James Tabor’s Paul and Jesus”
Grok response:
Explore Q Source Wisdom Sayings (Q Gospel / Q1)
Krossa frequently highlights Q Source (from German Quelle, “source”) research as the closest scholarly window into the actual teachings of the Historical Jesus, distinct from later “Jesus Christ” mythology. It is a hypothetical early collection of Jesus’ sayings (not a narrative gospel) reconstructed from material common to Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark. wendellkrossa.com
Key Points in Krossa’s Treatment
• Q1 (earliest layer): Non-apocalyptic, wisdom/sapiential in tone— focused on ethical teachings, hope, and a serene view of life. Scholars like James Robinson and John Kloppenborg identify this as reflecting Jesus’ core message before later apocalyptic additions (Q2/Q3 layers). wendellkrossa.com
• Central Theme: The “stunning new theology” summarized in Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36 — reject “eye for eye” retaliation; instead, love your enemies because God does (gives sun and rain to both good and bad; be merciful as God is merciful). This establishes a behavior/belief relationship: non-retaliatory, unconditional love and inclusion based on a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God. wendellkrossa.com
• Implications: No conditions for forgiveness (no sacrifice/payment demanded); non-tribal universal inclusion; restorative (not punitive) justice; nonviolent conflict resolution; anti-domination (“serve others”). Jesus presents as an ordinary “son of man,” not a divine savior figure. This is anti-apocalyptic and anti-threat theology. wendellkrossa.com
• Historical Role: Q represents the earliest “gospel” of Jesus (dated ~50s CE or earlier). Gospel writers later layered Christian/Pauline elements onto it. Krossa sees recovering Q1 as essential to separating Jesus’ “diamonds” from the “dung” of later Christ mythology. wendellkrossa.com
Krossa argues this material stands on its own as humane wisdom (not requiring religious authority) and offers a liberating alternative to conditional religion and fear-based narratives.
Investigate James Tabor’s “Paul and Jesus”
Krossa repeatedly cites historian James Tabor’s book Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity as strong scholarly support for the core contradiction between Historical Jesus and Paul’s version of Christianity. wendellkrossa.com
Main Points from Tabor (as Summarized/Used by Krossa)
• Two Opposing Versions of “Christianity”: There was a pre-Pauline version affirmed by Jesus and his original Jewish followers (focused on Jesus’ teachings and kingdom message). Paul’s version— centered on faith in the cosmic Christ, his death/resurrection as atonement, and apocalyptic salvation— was sharply opposed to it. wendellkrossa.com
• Paul’s Dominance: Paul (not Jesus or the Jerusalem apostles like James) essentially created Christianity as we know it. “Christianity…is Paul and Paul is Christianity.” His letters dominate the New Testament; his apocalyptic Christ myth shaped Western civilization’s foundations, ethics, and assumptions about reality. wendellkrossa.com
• Paul’s Influence: “Paul has been the most influential person in human history… he has shaped practically all that we think about everything.” His strongly apocalyptic perspective influenced everything he taught. The Historical Jesus has been largely lost, buried under Pauline theology. wendellkrossa.com
• Key Contrast: Jesus’ message (ethical, this-worldly kingdom, inclusion, non-retaliation) vs. Paul’s (heavenly Christ, salvation through belief in his atoning death, future apocalyptic judgment, tribal believer/unbeliever divide).
Krossa uses Tabor to bolster the argument that Paul’s Christology perpetuated primitive threat/apocalyptic mythology while overwhelming Jesus’ unconditional insight. This aligns with broader Historical Jesus scholarship (e.g., Jesus Seminar) showing early Christian diversity, with Paul’s Gentile/Hellenistic version winning out. wendellkrossa.com
These two explorations reinforce the site’s central project: recovering the “buried” unconditional message of Jesus (via Q and related research) as a humane alternative to the fear, conditions, and domination embedded in dominant Christ mythology. They provide historical and textual grounding for Krossa’s call to “separate diamonds from dung.” If you’d like deeper dives into specific Q passages, Tabor quotes, or other related essays, let me know!