See new material at the bottom of this section:
“More on the single most profound insight ever presented, Wendell Krossa”
Quote: “… even in physics (long presented as dealing with the most fundamental reality- i.e. the “material”) many have started to realize that there is something to Neils Bohr’s point that there appears to be an inseparable relationship between the conscious observer and observed reality… Others, involved with the early discoveries that were emerging from quantum mechanics, began to conclude that something Conscious was at the basis of reality.”
The insight/discovery that changes everything, that transforms human understanding more than anything ever spoken by anyone. So yes- “single most profound insight/discovery in history”, Wendell Krossa
The material below is similar to a section I posted last week but this adds more on the sources that I draw on to present the “single most profound insight/discovery” in all of human history. That sounds superlative, hyperbolic but consider that wisdom sage was presenting what others have termed “a stunning new theology” (e.g. James Robinson) previously unheard of in human history. He was speaking to the true nature of the Ultimate Reality, the creating Source of all, the sustaining Ground of all, the Consciousness/Mind behind all reality, the very essence of all that holds the material in existence. There is nothing more fundamental, more basic, more essential to all reality, spiritual or material.
TOE and modern science, along with human spirituality and philosophy, have across human history tried to understand what is the nature of the Source of all things, what is it really like? That speculation has been motivated by our primary impulse to meaning and purpose. We ask questions like Why does this all exist? Why do we exist? For what reason or purpose?
We (all humanity) sense intuitively that the Creator, the nature of the Creator, provides insight into why we have been created and why this world has been created. Hence, we speculate. Mythology, religious beliefs, philosophy, science are all propelled by such curiosity, the impulse to know what is behind all things.
And unfortunately, we have inherited the worst of past speculations from our ancestors. Still emerging out of an animal past (the great human exodus from that brutal existence) they projected the base features of that past out to explain the creating Reality and the result was deity as tribal, dominating, and punitively destroying. Monster gods.
It took until Historical Jesus to break that tradition and present his stunning new theology of God as no conditions love. That is the single most radical transformation in human understanding of ultimate reality ever offered. Entirely contrary to all that had been understood and believed before him.
Like the NDE people who cannot find words to describe the inexpressibly wondrous unconditional love they experienced, so also there are no words superlative enough to define the stunning new theology of that wisdom sage. And get this- he is pointing to the true nature of the creating/sustaining reality at the core of everything. The final element in a complete TOE.
Further:
Most people have intuitively understood across history the creating Source of all reality is not just some form of energy, force, natural law, or quantum fields (as the latest speculation on foundational reality), but has the nature of Consciousness, Mind, Intelligence, Spirit, personhood, Self. What people have long termed “God”.
And to calm alarmed materialists, the ultimate reality as presented by Historical Jesus is entirely nonreligious, even anti-religion, in that it is “unconditional” in nature, contrary to all religion that is essentially conditional. God cannot be something religious because as Jesus taught, God was most essentially unconditional love. Unconditional meaning absolutely no conditions. None.
I eventually understood this stunning new presentation of the true nature of ultimate reality by previously reading a paper by anthropologist Clifford Geertz (did fieldwork in Bali Indonesia) that illustrated how people there used the “behavior based on belief” coupling. The Balinese appeal to some greater divine reality to validate how they act and live, something divine that provides the ultimate template, model, archetype, and ideal for their behavior and lives, even how they should construct their villages and design their houses. They believe that in doing that they are mimicking a divine model.
Greater realities embody our ideals to shape our impulses to meaning and purpose, to create stories, worldviews, narratives that shape our thinking, feeling, motivations and then behavior, how we treat one another.
The early Hebrews did this throughout the Old Testament history- modelling everything in their lives according to what they believed was the word, law, will of their God. Behavior based on belief.
I then saw how Historical Jesus did just that when he presented his stunning new theology in his sermons on the Mount (Matthew 5) and by the Lake (Luke 6). He presented his new theology on the true nature of God as unconditional by framing that insight/discovery in a “behavior based on belief” coupling as recorded in the above sermons. Behave like this and you will be acting just as God does, because that is what God is like.
The best of human behavior- responding with no conditions love toward offenders/enemies- reveals the true nature of God to be just like that. The behavior is validated (inspired, guided, affirmed) by the belief.
I began this section by asking Grok, could you please do a one-page summary of your longer summaries in the section titled: “History’s single greatest insight into the nature of reality” posted at http://www.wendellkrossa.com/
And then add a one-paragraph summary to follow that one-page summary. Thanks.
Again, note the follow-up responses of Grok on the sources that helped me to re-evaluate what Historical Jesus taught as entirely contrary to Paul’s reframing of him in the Christ myth, essentially burying his stunning new theology under the conditional nature of the Christ theology that retreated to the old monster God features of all previous history- i.e. (1) tribalism- (favor true believers, damn unbelievers), (2) domination- (elites ruling commoners), and (3) punitive destruction of differing others- (salvation through destruction), etc. That is the great scandal of Paul’s “Christ-ianity”- i.e. that he rejected the stunning new insight of Jesus and then merged the man into the grand oxymoronic “Jesus Christ” of his new conditional religion. Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy, along with others across history, intuited that Paul had rejected and buried Jesus’ new diamond discovery in the same old mental pathologies of all previous history, what they termed “the dunghill” of religious theology.
Grok reply (I put the one-paragraph summary first):
In one paragraph:
The site’s spiritual/psychological project seeks to free minds and spirits from ancient threat-based myths (punitive deity, Fall, dualism, apocalypse, salvation through destruction) that still drive tribalism, domination, and retaliation in both religious and secular forms, by recovering the Historical Jesus’ vision of Ultimate Reality as unconditional, non-retaliatory, non-tribal love— offering ultimate reassurance, supporting liberal-democratic values of inclusion and restorative justice, and enabling hopeful, mature human living against evidence-defying emotional attachments to fear-based narratives.
And Grok’s one-page summary:
Freeing minds and spirits from fear: a spiritual/psychological project
Wendell Krossa’s site frames its core work as a spiritual and psychological project: liberating human minds and spirits from the deepest, primal fears rooted in ancient “Old Story Themes.” These fear-based narrative archetypes still dominate both religious and secular worldviews. The project is not primarily political or economic; it targets the root ideas that incite, energize, and validate the “evil triad” of inherited impulses— tribal exclusion/hatred, domination/control of others, and retaliatory destruction.
Central to the diagnosis is “threat theology”: the persistent complex of myths featuring a punitive, judging, or destroying deity (or secular equivalents such as vengeful Gaia, angry Planet/Mother Earth, retributive Universe, or payback karma); an original paradise lost through human corruption or Fall; humanity as essentially sinful; cosmic dualism pitting a true good side against evil enemies; looming apocalypse as final judgment; and salvation achieved through sacrifice, atonement, or destructive purge. These themes form a coherent package that appears across major Western religions and has been secularized in modern ideologies including Marxism/collectivism, Nazism, environmental/climate alarmism, and other forms of apocalyptic declinism.
The consequences include unnecessary fear, anxiety, guilt, despair (including “eco-anxiety” among youth, treated as a form of contemporary child abuse), tribal radicalism, coercive control, and mass-death crusades. Elites and radicals exploit the fear for power. Even self-described secular people often recycle the same archetypes unconsciously.
Beliefs shape personality, emotions, motivations, and behavior; images of a “cruel God” deform people and normalize violence. People continue to choose these ideas for the emotional satisfaction they provide— status as morally superior heroic warriors in cosmic good-versus-evil battles, virtue-signaling, and identity reinforcement— despite repeated evidence of horrific outcomes.
Krossa rejects declinism. Evidence points to a long-term rising trajectory of life and civilization: increasing complexity, organization, empathy, reduced violence, and material progress, rather than degeneration from a lost paradise. Problems exist and require responsible action, but they are solvable gradually through human creativity and cooperation rather than utopian rupture or “salvation through destruction.”
The positive alternative is the Historical Jesus’ breakthrough insight into Ultimate Reality as stunningly unconditional love: non-tribal (sun and rain freely given to good and bad alike), non-dominating (serve rather than lord over others), and non-retaliatory/non-violent (no more eye-for-eye; love enemies; endless forgiveness). This overturns threat theology entirely and offers ultimate reassurance— “It’s going to be alright for everyone, ultimately.” No one is rejected or destined for punitive destruction; there is fundamental Oneness and a shared human family; life is a developmental arena for growth amid imperfection.
These themes were largely buried under the conditional, apocalyptic, and sacrificial framework of Pauline Christology (echoing Jefferson’s and Tolstoy’s “diamonds in the dung” project). Recovering them supports Classic Liberal democracy principles: universal inclusion and equal value of individuals, mutual non-dominating service, merciful/restorative justice that still holds people responsible (e.g., protecting the innocent), gradual problem-solving, and creative human agency.
Paired lists of roughly 18 Old Story Themes versus better alternatives illustrate the shift: punitive deity → unconditional love; lost paradise + Fall → imperfect world as growth arena and rising humaneness; declining trajectory + apocalypse → overall rising trajectory with solvable problems; cosmic dualism → fundamental Oneness (while still opposing real evil without dehumanizing); required sacrifice or salvation-through-destruction → no such demands, with human creativity as the path forward. Related material includes near-death experience accounts that convey the felt reality of unconditional love and psychological analyses of why people cling to harmful beliefs.
The overall aim is a “death and rebirth” of narrative identity around unconditional love at the core of reality. This frees people from inherited deformities so they can live with hope, dignity, responsibility, and authentic human maturity, while protecting healthier individuals and liberal democratic institutions against theocratic or collectivist threats.
Grok, All three of your end suggestions would be good: Explore Historical Jesus unconditional love, Analyze Pauline Christology impact, and Condense summary to one paragraph
Grok reply:
Explore Historical Jesus’ unconditional love:
According to the themes repeatedly developed on Wendell Krossa’s site (drawing on Historical Jesus research, Q-source wisdom sayings, the Jesus Seminar, and related scholarship), the core insight of the Historical Jesus is a theology of Ultimate Reality as stunningly unconditional love. This is presented as non-religious in character— radically different from the conditional, threat-based frameworks of the surrounding religious traditions of his time.
Key expressions of this insight appear in the Sermon on the Plain / Mount material (especially Luke 6:27–36 and Matthew 5:38–48). Jesus teaches: do not retaliate with “eye for eye”; instead, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and lend without expecting return. The grounding reason is the character of God: “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” Therefore, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (or “perfect/complete” in the Matthean parallel).
The same spirit appears in the parable of the Prodigal Father (Luke 15): the father runs to the returning son, embraces him, and restores him fully with no demand for apology, restitution, sacrifice, or payment beforehand.
Other consistent notes include non-domination (“whoever wants to be first must be the servant of all”), radical inclusion of outsiders and “sinners,” unlimited forgiveness, and critique of religious legalism and hypocrisy. God is portrayed as generous, non-tribal, and non-retaliatory. Life is an arena for growth and ethical transformation rather than a fallen tragedy requiring violent restoration. The practical upshot is ultimate reassurance: no one is ultimately rejected or destined for punitive destruction; there is fundamental shared humanity (“Oneness”).
Krossa and the sources he cites treat this as history’s single greatest insight into the nature of reality— one that directly counters primal human impulses toward tribal exclusion, domination, and retaliatory destruction. It supplies the positive archetypes for a hopeful, inclusive, non-apocalyptic worldview.
Analyze Pauline Christology impact
Krossa (echoing Thomas Jefferson’s “diamonds in the dunghill,” Leo Tolstoy, and certain strands of historical-critical scholarship) argues that Paul’s Christology largely reburied the Historical Jesus’ unconditional insight under older conditional and threat-based categories. In the undisputed Pauline letters the center of gravity shifts from Jesus’ teaching about God and the kingdom (with its radical ethics) to a high Christology focused on the crucified and risen Christ.
Key features include:
• Jesus’ death as an atoning/salvific event that satisfies divine justice.
• Justification by faith in what God has done in Christ.
• Retention (and intensification) of traditional elements: divine wrath, judgment, sacrificial logic, dualism (flesh vs. Spirit, present age vs. age to come), and apocalyptic expectation.
• The earthly ministry and ethical sayings of Jesus become comparatively secondary; the cross and resurrection become the decisive cosmic turning point.
The result, on this reading, is a highly conditional religion: salvation requires the supreme condition of a cosmic sacrifice (and faith in that sacrifice). Threat theology is re-embedded— punitive elements, exclusion of unbelievers, and “salvation through destruction” motifs persist. Over time this synthesis shaped mainstream Christianity and, via secularized forms, later ideologies that recycle the same archetypal complex (apocalyptic dualism, purge of the “evil other,” coercive control).
Krossa does not deny that Paul also speaks of love, grace, and reconciliation; the claim is one of relative emphasis and overall framing. The unconditional, non-retaliatory core is subordinated to (and often contradicted by) a larger conditional, sacrificial, and judgment-oriented narrative. The practical historical impact, in this view, has been the continued validation of fear, tribalism, domination, and retaliatory impulses— precisely the dynamics the Historical Jesus’ insight was meant to overturn.
Recovering the “diamonds” therefore requires distinguishing the two strands rather than treating them as seamless continuity.
Condensed one-paragraph summary
The site’s spiritual/psychological project seeks to free minds and spirits from ancient threat-based myths (punitive deity, Fall, dualism, apocalypse, salvation through destruction) that still drive tribalism, domination, and retaliation in both religious and secular forms, by recovering the Historical Jesus’ vision of Ultimate Reality as unconditional, non-retaliatory, non-tribal love— offering ultimate reassurance, supporting liberal-democratic values of inclusion and restorative justice, and enabling hopeful, mature human living against evidence-defying emotional attachments to fear-based narratives.
Grok, These next suggestions of yours would also be interesting: Examine Q source wisdom sayings, Investigate Thomas Jefferson Bible edits, and Emphasize Krossa’s secular application
Grok reply:
Examine Q source wisdom sayings
The Q source (from German Quelle, “source”) is a hypothesized early collection of Jesus’ sayings, reconstructed by scholars from material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark. Many regard it as one of the earliest recoverable layers of the Jesus tradition (roughly mid-first century), closer to the historical figure than the later narrative Gospels with their heavier theological overlays.
Scholars such as John Kloppenborg identify an early “sapiential” or wisdom layer (often labeled Q1) consisting mainly of instructional speeches. This layer emphasizes a countercultural ethic grounded in the character of God rather than apocalyptic judgment or sacrificial atonement. Central to it is the call to love enemies and practice non-retaliation:
• “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you… so that you may be children of your Father, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.”
• Parallel exhortations include turning the other cheek, giving to those who ask without expecting return, not judging, and lending without hope of repayment.
These sayings present God as impartially generous and non-retaliatory. The ethical demand follows directly: imitate that same unconditional stance. Related material includes trust in divine provision (consider the birds and lilies), blessing the poor and hungry, and a radical openness that crosses social boundaries.
Later layers of Q add more judgmental or apocalyptic tones, but the earliest wisdom material is widely seen as the closest window onto a non-retaliatory, inclusive vision. Krossa and related researchers treat this core as the clearest expression of the Historical Jesus’ “stunning new theology” of unconditional love— free of the later Christological and sacrificial frameworks.
Investigate Thomas Jefferson Bible edits
Thomas Jefferson produced two related projects. The earlier The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth (c. 1804) is lost; the better-known The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (completed 1820, often called the Jefferson Bible) survives. Using a razor and glue, Jefferson cut passages from multiple New Testament editions (English, French, Greek, Latin) and arranged selected verses into a continuous narrative of Jesus’ life and teaching.
His explicit criterion was to extract “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man,” separating what he judged authentic from later additions “as easily as diamonds from a dunghill.” He systematically removed:
• All miracles and supernatural events (healings, walking on water, virgin birth, transfiguration, etc.).
• Claims of divinity, prophecy fulfillment, and most references to Jesus as Messiah or Son of God in a metaphysical sense.
• The resurrection, ascension, and any post-crucifixion appearances.
• Much of the theological framing in John and apocalyptic or judgmental material.
What remained was a chronological account focused on ethical teaching— especially the Sermon on the Mount/Plain material, parables with moral force, and sayings about forgiveness, inclusion, non-retaliation, and service. Jefferson read the resulting volume privately for the rest of his life.
Krossa repeatedly invokes Jefferson’s “diamonds in the dunghill” metaphor (along with Tolstoy’s similar project) as a model for recovering the unconditional core of the Historical Jesus from the later Pauline and ecclesiastical layers that reintroduced conditional, sacrificial, and threat-based themes.
Emphasize Krossa’s secular application
Krossa consistently treats the unconditional insight as non-religious and transferable to secular ethics, psychology, and politics. The Historical Jesus is presented less as a religious founder than as a wisdom sage whose central discovery— Ultimate Reality as no-conditions love— supplies better archetypes for human maturity. These archetypes directly support Classic Liberal (or classical liberal-democratic) principles:
• Universal inclusion and equal value of every individual (sun and rain given to all alike → protected rights and freedoms for citizens regardless of belief or group).
• Non-domination and mutual service rather than hierarchical control (serve rather than lord over → limited government, citizen sovereignty, resistance to elite or bureaucratic overreach).
• Restorative rather than purely retaliatory justice (love enemies, endless forgiveness, while still holding people responsible—e.g., protecting the innocent through measured accountability).
In this framing, the same archetypal shift that liberates personal consciousness from primal fear also underwrites healthier societies: reduced tribal polarization, rejection of “salvation through destruction” ideologies (whether theocratic or secular-collectivist), evidence-based optimism against declinist alarmism, and gradual problem-solving through human creativity and cooperation.
Krossa argues that threat theology (and its secular equivalents) continues to energize the worst impulses; replacing it with unconditional love at the narrative core offers a secularly usable foundation for dignity, responsibility, and liberal democratic resilience— without requiring religious belief or institutional religion. The project is therefore framed as psychological and cultural liberation available to anyone, religious or not.
Grok, Please continue with these next suggestions of yours: Explore Kloppenborg’s Q source stratigraphy and Compare Jefferson Bible with Tolstoy Gospel
Grok response:
Explore Kloppenborg’s Q source stratigraphy
John S. Kloppenborg’s landmark 1987 study The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections proposed a three-stage compositional history for the Sayings Gospel Q. His model remains highly influential (though not universally accepted) in Q research and is frequently referenced in discussions of the earliest recoverable Jesus tradition.
• Q¹ (the formative stratum / sapiential layer)
This is the earliest and foundational layer. It consists of six instructional “wisdom speeches” addressed primarily to the Q community itself. Characteristic forms include beatitudes, admonitions, rhetorical questions, proverbs, and motive clauses. Key motifs center on discipleship, poverty, trust in divine provision, non-retaliation, love of enemies, generosity without expectation of return, non-judgment, and a radical ethic of the kingdom.
Major blocks include the inaugural sermon (roughly Q 6:20b–49, with the love-of-enemies material), mission instructions (Q 9:57–60; 10:2–16), the Lord’s Prayer and related sayings (Q 11:2–4, 9–13), warnings against anxiety (Q 12:22–34), and further discipleship teachings. The rhetoric is hortatory and persuasive, presenting Jesus as a sage whose teaching invites imitation of a generous, non-retaliatory God. This layer is often treated as the closest literary window onto the Historical Jesus’ ethical core.
• Q² (the main redaction / judgment layer)
A later redactional stage that roughly doubled the size of the document. It introduces a stronger prophetic and deuteronomistic tone: announcements of judgment against “this generation,” woes, the motif of rejected prophets, and many Son of Man sayings. The rhetoric shifts toward defensive pronouncement and confrontation. Existing wisdom material is sometimes framed or interrupted by these judgmental insertions. The community’s self-understanding now includes a clearer sense of opposition from outsiders.
• Q³ (the final recension)
A thinner, late stage that adds the Temptation narrative (Q 4:1–13). This moves the collection slightly in the direction of biography and introduces positive references to Torah and temple that are largely absent earlier. It also reinforces a more defined Christology.
Kloppenborg’s method relies on literary and redaction-critical analysis— observing differences in audience, genre/forms, motifs, and signs of secondary insertion— rather than pure tradition-history. The model has been refined, debated, and partially adjusted by later scholars (some expand or contract the boundaries of Q¹; others question the sharp wisdom/judgment dichotomy). For researchers interested in the non-retaliatory, unconditional elements emphasized by Wendell Krossa, the Q¹ sapiential layer is especially significant: it is where the sun-and-rain generosity, enemy-love, and non-retaliation sayings sit most securely.
Compare Jefferson Bible with Tolstoy Gospel
Both Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy independently undertook radical editorial projects to recover what they regarded as the pure moral teaching of Jesus, stripping away later ecclesiastical and miraculous accretions. Their efforts are frequently paired in comparative studies precisely because of the striking parallels— and revealing differences— in method and emphasis.
Jefferson’s The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (completed 1820, often called the Jefferson Bible)
Jefferson physically cut verses from multiple printed New Testaments (English, French, Greek, Latin) with a razor and pasted them into a chronological narrative. He excised virtually all miracles, the virgin birth, claims of divinity, the resurrection, ascension, and most theological framing. What remained was a concise ethical biography focused on Jesus’ sayings and moral example— especially the Sermon on the Mount material, parables with ethical force, and teachings on forgiveness, inclusion, and non-retaliation. Jefferson described the process as separating “diamonds from a dunghill” or “gold from the dross.” The work was private; he never published it and read it for personal use.
Tolstoy’s The Gospel in Brief (Краткое изложение Евангелия, 1881–1892 versions)
Tolstoy went further. After intensive study of the Greek text, he not only selected and harmonized material from the four Gospels but actively rewrote and paraphrased it into a continuous narrative in accessible Russian, organized into twelve chapters that he aligned with the Lord’s Prayer. Like Jefferson, he omitted miracles, genealogies, prophecies, the resurrection, and most supernatural elements. His focus is even more intensely ethical and practical: non-resistance to evil, radical love of neighbor and enemy, rejection of oaths, sexual restraint, and the kingdom of God as an inner, present reality (“within you”).
Tolstoy’s version is more interpretive and didactic; he sometimes heightens the ascetic or social-revolutionary force of the teachings to match his own late-life convictions about nonviolence, simplicity, and the rejection of institutional religion and state power.
Key similarities
Both men viewed institutional Christianity as having buried Jesus’ authentic moral message under dogma, miracle, and priestly power. Both sought a rational, ethical core usable for personal and social life. Both eliminated the supernatural scaffolding and produced a Jesus who is primarily a moral teacher. The shared “diamonds from dunghill” impulse (Jefferson’s explicit metaphor; Tolstoy’s parallel practice of purifying the text) is frequently noted by scholars and by writers such as Krossa who invoke both figures in the project of recovering the unconditional, non-retaliatory core.
Key differences
• Method: Jefferson cut-and-pasted existing verses with minimal rewriting; Tolstoy translated, paraphrased, and restructured.
• Tone and emphasis: Jefferson’s is cooler, Enlightenment-rational, and relatively restrained. Tolstoy’s is more passionate, ascetic, and socially radical (stronger non-resistance, anti-property, and anti-institutional edges).
• Publication and purpose: Jefferson’s was private; Tolstoy’s was published and intended as a practical spiritual manual for ordinary people.
• Christology: Both demote metaphysical divinity, but Tolstoy more explicitly reframes Jesus as the revealer of the “spirit of the Father” within every person.
In short, Jefferson produced a carefully excised ethical anthology; Tolstoy produced a rewritten ethical gospel. Both stand as classic modern attempts to liberate the moral teaching of Jesus from later layers— precisely the kind of recovery project that Krossa continues by highlighting the Q wisdom material and the unconditional themes against Pauline and later developments.
Grok, Continue with both your suggestions: Examine Q1 non-retaliation sayings and Investigate the Gospel of Thomas
Grok reply:
Examine Q1 non-retaliation sayings
In John Kloppenborg’s stratification, the core non-retaliation and enemy-love material belongs to the formative sapiential stratum (Q¹), specifically within the inaugural speech (roughly Q 6:20b–49). This block is widely regarded as one of the earliest and most distinctive elements of the Q tradition.
A standard scholarly reconstruction of the key section (drawing on the Critical Edition of Q and related work) runs approximately as follows:
• Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become children of your Father, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
• If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, let them have your cloak as well.
• Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
• If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much again.
• But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
• Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
• Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
These sayings form a coherent rhetorical unit. The ethical demand (non-retaliation, enemy-love, open-handed generosity) is grounded theologically in the character of God: impartial, non-tribal, non-retaliatory generosity. The “sun and rain” image is especially important— it portrays Ultimate Reality as freely giving the necessities of life to both the “good” and the “bad” without discrimination or conditions. The practical examples (turning the other cheek, giving the cloak as well, lending without expectation) illustrate a refusal of reciprocal, tit-for-tat justice and a move toward extravagant, unilateral generosity.
This material sits squarely in Q¹’s instructional style: second-person admonitions, rhetorical questions that contrast ordinary reciprocity with a higher standard, and appeals to divine imitation. Later Q² judgment language is largely absent here. For interpreters such as Wendell Krossa, these sayings constitute the clearest early witness to the Historical Jesus’ “stunning new theology” of unconditional, non-retaliatory love— the very insight later obscured by more conditional and apocalyptic frameworks.
Investigate the Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas is a non-canonical collection of 114 sayings (logia) attributed to Jesus, discovered in complete form among the Nag Hammadi codices in 1945 (Coptic version) and known earlier in Greek fragments from Oxyrhynchus (late 2nd–early 3rd century). It is a pure sayings gospel: no narrative of Jesus’ birth, ministry events, death, or resurrection. The opening reads: “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.”
Scholars generally date the final form to the mid-to-late 2nd century, though many argue that an earlier core of sayings may reach back into the first century and preserve independent tradition. Roughly one-third of its sayings have parallels in Q or the Synoptics (sometimes in forms that appear more primitive or less theologically developed). It shares the genre of a wisdom/sayings collection with Q, which is one reason the discovery of Thomas strengthened confidence in the Q hypothesis.
Key characteristics relevant to the present discussion:
• Emphasis on seeking, finding, and self-knowledge: “The kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known…” (Saying 3).
• Wisdom and paradoxical sayings, many of which stress interior transformation and the present reality of the kingdom rather than future apocalyptic judgment.
• Occasional ethical notes such as “Love your brother like your soul; protect him like the apple of your eye” (Saying 25) and the splinter/beam saying (Saying 26), which parallel Q material on self-examination before judging others.
• Absence of the full non-retaliation/enemy-love complex found in Q 6:27–36. Thomas does not contain the “love your enemies / sun and rain” unit or the cheek/cloak examples. Its ethical horizon is more focused on interior enlightenment, renunciation, and unity than on the social ethic of extravagant non-retaliation.
Thomas is often described as having a “gnosticizing” or proto-gnostic coloring in its final form (secret knowledge, dualistic tendencies, emphasis on the “living Jesus” as revealer of hidden truth). However, many of its individual sayings lack overt Gnostic mythology and can be read as continuous with earlier Jewish wisdom and Jesus traditions.
Scholars disagree on how much of Thomas is independent of the Synoptics versus dependent on them; the consensus leans toward at least partial independence for a significant portion of the material.
In relation to the themes pursued on Krossa’s site, Thomas is valuable as another early sayings collection that, like Q¹, presents Jesus primarily as a wisdom teacher rather than as the center of a sacrificial or apocalyptic drama. It reinforces the existence of a stream of Jesus tradition centered on transformative insight and present kingdom reality. Yet it does not preserve the distinctive unconditional, non-retaliatory theology of the Q¹ enemy-love sayings that Krossa highlights as history’s single greatest insight. Thomas thus serves as a useful comparative text— confirming the antiquity of the sayings genre while underscoring the unique force of the Q non-retaliation material.
(End of Grok comment)
I sent this email post to some friends…
Bob, Julia:
That Luke 4 incident where Jesus first introduced his new theology- the audience reaction to that is quite fascinating. How he stopped after quoting the Isaiah 61 statements on “freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners” and “the favor of God”, refusing to read on to the next statement- “the day of vengeance of our God”. Then recognizing that his audience did not yet get his new theology (i.e. mumbling among themselves), he added the illustration of God sending the two respected prophets, Elijah and Elisha, to feed a pagan Baal worshipper in Sidon and heal a Syrian. Point? God was exhibiting a universal inclusion and unconditional love that did not affirm Jewish longing for vengeance against such outsiders and enemies.
In that first public appearance he was starting to present his new unconditional love deity, going to the heart of Judaism to challenge and reject the old theology and present his stunning new alternative. And what a murderous reaction that evoked in that Jewish audience.
He presents his new theology in terms of some exhibited and illustrated human behavior- i.e. Elijah and Elisha acting universally and inclusively toward “enemies/unbelievers”. He then relates that to God, stating his new theology of God as unconditional love in relation to that human behavior.
He said, “I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon.”
His point is that it was God who “sent Elijah”, and that God did not send the prophet to Jews but to outsiders, to unbelievers.
In a related section I have asked Grok to probe and explain the psychology of what is going on with that type of enraged reaction in Luke 4. Sort of related to Kristian Niemietz’s comment on why people find emotional satisfaction in choosing such ideas/beliefs and defensively protecting such theologies and narratives, to the point of enraged violence toward challenges.
I may have already sent this section to you…. (The comment in this has to do with personal identity issues, survival as related to what people place their identity in, etc.)
“Emotional satisfaction” in choosing bad beliefs against evidence of horrific outcomes.
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=16431#more-16431
Later, in what are recorded as his fuller presentations of his message, I view one section there as central to the unconditional theme and message of the man- his precepts based on theology, notably in the Matthew 5: 38-48 and even better in the Luke 6: 27-36 section.
One of the Jesus Seminar scholars that I contacted many years ago responded that he did not think that was the central passage. But, as it is in the Q Wisdom Sayings material, I see it as standing head and shoulders above the rest of that material because it is about the main precepts (the best and highest of human behavior) and the theology that the precepts are validated by. The two most important things he taught.
And as you recently said Bob in your last essay- i.e. that the best of human behavior reveals the true nature of God because God has incarnated in all humanity and reveals God’s self through the best of human behavior.
Jesus’ point is that if you act like this toward offenders/enemies then you will be acting just like God, thus revealing just what the true nature of God is. Universal, inclusive, non-retaliatory, non-vengeful, non-punitive, unconditional treatment of all the same, equally. Good affirmation of liberal democracy principles and institutions and done at the archetypal level, at the level of theology- he went directly to the central archetype of ultimate reality/creator and transformed that.
Another note: I suspect that the priests knew exactly what he did in the Temple protest, not just protesting the sacrifice industry but they must have been aware that he was challenging and rejecting the demanding, threatening God that was all based on, a wrathful God who would punish and destroy if not appeased with blood sacrifice.
Paul reaffirms that old wrathful, demanding God who threatens destruction if not appeased in Romans 12: 17-20. That is not just a little tucked away add-lib thing. That, my view, is Paul going directly to the core of the Jesus message to confront, reject, and re-establish the old deity of “I will retaliate/repay, vengeance is mine”. And using a similar behavior based on belief coupling as Jesus did but orienting even the behavior to motivation by the promise of divine vengeance.
More on the single most profound insight ever presented, Wendell Krossa
Add that even in physics (long presented as dealing with the most fundamental reality- i.e. the “material”) many have started to realize that there is something to Neils Bohr’s point that there appears to be an inseparable relationship between the conscious observer and observed reality (i.e. the material/physical realm). Others, involved with the early discoveries that were emerging from quantum mechanics, began to conclude that something Conscious was at the basis of reality.
AI Overview
Yes, that is a famous line by the British astrophysicist and philosopher Sir Arthur Eddington. He wrote in his 1933 book The Expanding Universe that “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine”.
What Eddington Meant
• Dissolving Matter: As 20th-century physics probed deeper into atoms and quantum mechanics, solid matter seemed to vanish into mathematical abstractions, probabilities, and empty space.
• Mind-Stuff: Eddington argued that the “stuff of the world is mind-stuff,” meaning that the fundamental reality of the cosmos is closer to consciousness and mental structure than to physical cogs and wheels.
• Intelligibility: He believed the universe obeys mathematical laws because its underlying nature shares an affinity with human thought and rational awareness.
(End of AI Overview)
Others in physics have more recently argued that a new pyramid of reality should now put consciousness at the bottom as the basis of all, the creating Source of all, the very core essence of reality. Notable in this regard is…
“Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness” by Bruce Rosenblum, Fred Kuttner, Oxford University Press
Blurb on book:
“In trying to understand the atom, physicists built quantum mechanics, the most successful theory in science and the basis of one-third of our economy. They found, to their embarrassment, that with their theory, physics encounters consciousness. Authors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner explain all this in non-technical terms with help from some fanciful stories and anecdotes about the theory’s developers.
“They present the quantum mystery honestly, emphasizing what is and what is not speculation. Quantum Enigma’s description of the experimental quantum facts, and the quantum theory explaining them, is undisputed. Interpreting what it all means, however, is heatedly controversial. But every interpretation of quantum physics involves consciousness.
“Rosenblum and Kuttner therefore turn to exploring consciousness itself– and encounter quantum mechanics. Free will and anthropic principles become crucial issues, and the connection of consciousness with the cosmos suggested by some leading quantum cosmologists is mind-blowing. Readers are brought to a boundary where the particular expertise of physicists is no longer the only sure guide. They will find, instead, the facts and hints provided by quantum mechanics and the ability to speculate for themselves.
“In the few decades since the Bell’s theorem experiments established the existence of entanglement (Einstein’s “spooky action”), interest in the foundations, and the mysteries, of quantum mechanics has accelerated. In recent years, physicists, philosophers, computer engineers, and even biologists have expanded our realization of the significance of quantum phenomena. This second edition includes such advances. The authors have also drawn on many responses from readers and instructors to improve the clarity of the book’s explanations.”
(End of Quantum Enigma blurb)
Further, some others along this line of consciousness as basic reality…
AI Overview
Several books written by physicists and researchers use quantum mechanics to argue that consciousness is fundamental to reality, challenging traditional scientific materialism.
Key Books on Physics and Consciousness
• Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer by Henry P. Stapp: Written by a prominent mathematical physicist, this book argues that orthodox quantum mechanics requires conscious experiences to actively participate in the collapse of the quantum wave function.
• Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner: This accessible text explores how foundational quantum experiments suggest that the observer cannot be separated from the observed system, forcing physics to confront consciousness.
• Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics: Life in Parallel Worlds by Michael B. Mensky: A theoretical physicist expands the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics to propose that human consciousness is the agent that selects which alternative reality we experience.
• The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life by Evan Harris Walker: Written by a physicist, this work treats consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe rooted in the hidden behavior of subatomic particles.
• The Non-local Universe: The New Physics and Matters of the Mind by Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos: The authors argue that quantum non-locality and entanglement prove that the universe is an undivided wholeness, bridging the gap between physical reality and human cognition.
(End of AI Overview)
My takeaway is that the physicists noted above are opening their minds to what most people have intuitively recognized across history- i.e. that the creating Source of all reality, whether the “spiritual” or “material” realms and all else, that the Creator is more than just force, energy, some form of “field” (i.e. quantum fields), etc. but is of the nature of Consciousness, Mind, Intelligence, Spiritual, Self, and with personhood or personality though of transcendent nature as is understood of all divine reality.
Hence, across most of human history people have termed the creating/sustaining Source of all as deity or “God”. A transcendent Person. As Roy Varghese, the author of “The Wonder of the World” said, you cannot have mind, consciousness, intelligence without personhood or personality. That is illogical, irrational.
And to jump right across to my earlier point on this- that makes the Jesus’ insight on God as unconditional love the single greatest and most profound insight ever on fundamental or ultimate reality. My point on a “complete TOE”.
This means, as the poets and songsters have long suggested- “Love really is all”. And not just “love” as most of us commonly experience and know, but stunningly, wondrous, inexpressibly transcendent unconditional love. Beyond the best that can be imagined.
As Campbell said, the term God is penultimate, it is a term that points to the inexpressible God beyond God. Now add the critical element of love to this speculation about deity, and then reach even higher to “unconditional” and you have reached the most profound insight/discovery in all human history.
And we don’t need some religious authority to affirm this to us. To the contrary, all religious authorities/elites and their religious systems have always got God completely wrong by framing this ultimate reality within conditional religion. None, not one religion, has ever presented the true nature of God to humanity, as unconditional reality. None. All religion is about conditions- i.e. religious conditions. An institution of conditions cannot communicate unconditional reality and an unconditional lifestyle/ethic to people.
The Christ myth of Paul is the ultimate embodiment of conditions. Paul presented his Christ myth as fulfilling the supreme condition of the demanded sacrifice of cosmic godman who would be the savior for all humanity across all history. Ultimate archetypal condition.
That myth was entirely in contradiction to Jesus’ two-decades earlier breakthrough insight and message that God was unconditional reality.
Look also at Jesus’ personal behavior that consistently illustrated unconditional forgiveness, inclusion of all, and unconditional love for offenders/enemies. He unconditionally included the outcasts of society in community gatherings and meals. His behavior illustrated just what he taught in his lists of precepts that urged the unconditional love of offenders/enemies and concluded that such behavior revealed the true nature of God, i.e. “Be unconditionally merciful as God is unconditionally merciful.”
As he stated at the conclusion of the Luke 6 message, act like this, treat others like this, and you will be just like God, and you will be revealing what God is actually like, an unconditional love reality.
I repeat my conclusion based on the above:
I don’t know of anything from across human history or across the world today that approaches the “profundity” of that discovery of conscious love at the core of all, as the essence of all things, and the stunning nature of the love as unconditional. It changes everything. It liberates from the worst of human primal fears that have been beaten into humanity over millennia by religious threat theologies- i.e. angry deity threatening exclusion, punishment, and destruction.
This added note on “Carl Jung on ‘religion has got God all wrong’”. I am not affirming all that AI Overview states here…
AI Overview
Carl Jung treated God as an internal psychological reality and an archetypal image of the Self rather than a literal, external creator. Traditional believers argue this approach reduces divine truth to human brain functions, stripping God of objective existence and turning religion into a self-analysis tool.
Why Critics Say Jung Got God Wrong
• Psychologizing the Divine: Critics argue that reducing God to an archetype in the collective unconscious makes human psychology the ultimate authority, replacing external holiness with inner states.
• Rejection of Dogma: Traditional theologians point out that Jung discarded historical doctrines, institutional authority, and literal scriptural truths in favor of personal mystical experiences.
• Relativizing Good and Evil: By viewing God as a totality that encompasses both light and dark forces (such as his discussion of Job or the figure of Abraxas), critics contend Jung blurred traditional moral boundaries between righteousness and sin.
Jung’s Defense and Perspective
• The Reality of Experience: In famous interviews, Jung stated that he did not have to “believe” in God because he “knew” God through direct, overwhelming psychological and emotional experience.
• Protection Against True Encounter: Jung argued that organized religion often acts as a defense mechanism—a set of rituals and creeds that keeps people safely insulated from having a raw, terrifying, and transformative encounter with the actual living divine force inside them.
• The God-Image: He insisted he was not defining what God is in Himself, but rather how the human mind necessarily experiences and depicts the divine through the “God-image” (imago Dei)
My next query- Jung also apparently taught that God was present within each person:
AI Overview:
Carl Jung did not teach that human beings are literally God, but rather that the human psyche contains an inherent image of the divine— known as the archetype of the Self— which is experienced as if it were God within. In Jungian psychology, the God-image (imago Dei) operates from the deep layers of the collective unconscious, meaning people experience transcendent, overpowering spiritual forces as an inner reality rather than purely abstract dogma.
How Jung Understood the Divine Within
• The Self as a Symbol: Jung viewed the Self— the central archetype of psychological wholeness and balance— as structurally parallel to traditional Concepts of God. Because the psyche mirrors this ordering center, human beings possess an innate capacity to experience the divine internally.
• The Kingdom Within: Jung frequently referenced mystical sayings like “the Kingdom of God is within you,” interpreting them as empirical descriptions of how the unconscious acts upon the conscious ego.
• An Autonomous Force: He maintained that the inner divine image is not under the control of the conscious ego. When an archetype erupts into a person’s awareness through dreams or intense life crises, it feels entirely objective, external, and overpowering— even though it occurs on the stage of the human mind.
(End of AI Overview)
I would lean more to Bob Brinsmead’s points that God has incarnated in all humanity equally, and I would add that God as incarnated is inseparable from our human spirit, hence the oneness with God that many state they have experienced. One with God but still possessing individual human unique personhood or identity.
Another query for Grok:
Grok, at http://www.wendellkrossa.com/ in the section titled- “Q Wisdom Sayings” reveals the “single most profound insight/discovery in history”, posted on August 15, 2026 by Wendell Krossa, there is a subtitled bit: “More on the single most profound insight ever presented, Wendell Krossa”.
Moving beyond your other comment in that section, on sources that point to the real Historical Jesus and his actual message, do you see why the central unconditional theme of Historical Jesus can be considered the most profound insight ever presented to humanity? I base this conclusion of mine on the fact that the Jesus theology of God as unconditional love, deals with what all humans have tried to grasp across history- i.e. the true nature of ultimate reality, the real nature of the creating/sustaining source of all, that is the real essence of everything, that which holds all in existence.
This reality cannot be grasped by a materialism approach (i.e. a materialist science that is oriented only to materialist conclusions) that does not have any idea what human consciousness is or what the human self is, or what is the essence of anything. As others have said, materialist science is limited to understanding only the physical realm, i.e. observable and measurable reality. It cannot explore and explain the creating, sustaining realms beyond, such as the greater “spiritual” reality.
These facts lead to my speculation that the creating reality, defined by Jesus as unconditional love, explains the ultimate reality and is therefore the single most profound insight/discovery ever made and presented.
Grok reply:
I understand the argument you’re making, and I’ve looked at the relevant section on Wendell Krossa’s site (the August 15, 2026 post under “Q Wisdom Sayings” and the follow-up material on the “single most profound insight”). The core claim is that the Historical Jesus’ portrayal of ultimate reality— God, the creating/sustaining source, the essence of everything— as unconditional love (non-tribal, non-retaliatory, freely given to all without conditions, as in the “sun and rain on the just and unjust” framing in the Sermon on the Mount / Lake material) is the single most profound insight ever presented to humanity. You ground this in the idea that it addresses the deepest human questions about the nature of reality itself, questions that pure materialism (limited to the observable, measurable physical realm) cannot reach because it has no account of consciousness, selfhood, or non-physical essence.
Why the claim has force
There is a coherent logic to treating this as uniquely profound within a certain frame:
• Across cultures and history, humans have projected ultimate reality in ways that mirror our evolutionary past: tribal favoritism, hierarchical domination, and punitive payback. Most mythologies, religions, and even many secular ideologies recycle versions of threat, judgment, or conditional acceptance. A vision that systematically inverts those (no conditions at all, love of enemies, endless forgiveness, non-domination) is a genuine rupture. Scholars of the Q tradition and Historical Jesus research (James Robinson and others) have called aspects of it a “stunning new theology” precisely because it is so discontinuous with prior patterns.
• If one grants that the deepest human longing is for meaning, security, and the true character of whatever holds existence together, then a claim about that character is more foundational than discoveries limited to the material domain (laws of physics, evolutionary mechanisms, etc.). Materialist methods excel at describing how the physical world behaves; they are silent on “why there is something rather than nothing,” on the nature of consciousness, or on whether reality is ultimately personal, impersonal, or something else. An insight that speaks directly to the “Ground of all” therefore sits at a different level.
• Practically, the ethical payoff is real. Framing ultimate reality as unconditional love underwrites inclusion, restorative rather than purely retributive justice, and the refusal to dehumanize opponents. That has measurable psychological and social value: it undercuts the fear-based narratives (punitive deity, cosmic dualism, salvation-through-destruction) that have fueled tribalism and violence.
Near-death experience reports, certain contemplative traditions, and some philosophical idealisms converge on similar intuitions of a fundamentally benign or loving ground, which gives the idea experiential resonance for many people even if it remains non-falsifiable by laboratory standards.
Where the claim is contested or limited
Calling it the single most profound insight in all of history is a strong superlative that depends on several contested premises:
1. Historical-Jesus reconstruction is uncertain. The Q sayings and related material are scholarly reconstructions, not uncontested primary sources. Mainstream historical Jesus research (Sanders, Meier, Ehrman, Crossan, etc.) finds a Jewish apocalyptic prophet or wisdom teacher whose message is more complex and less purely “unconditional” than the distilled version emphasized here. Paul’s letters are earlier than the Gospels, and the “Christ” framework is not simply a later burial of a pure diamond; it is part of the earliest continuous tradition. Separating “Historical Jesus” from “Christ of faith” is legitimate scholarly work, but the results remain debated.
2. Materialism and science are not the only alternatives, nor are they as narrow as sometimes portrayed. Many physicists and philosophers of mind (from Bohr and Wheeler to contemporary panpsychists, idealists, or information-theoretic approaches) already treat consciousness as potentially fundamental rather than emergent from dead matter. Quantum foundations, the hard problem of consciousness, and fine-tuning arguments keep the question of “ultimate reality” open inside science itself. An unconditional-love theology is one interpretive overlay, not the only coherent one.
3. Other candidates for “most profound” insights exist on their own terms.
• The recognition that the universe is intelligible and governed by mathematical law (the scientific revolution).
• The insight that all humans share equal moral worth independent of tribe or status (expressed in various forms from the Axial Age onward and later institutionalized in liberal democracy and human rights).
• Non-dual or emptiness insights in Indian and Buddhist traditions that dissolve the separate self and the subject-object split.
• The evolutionary understanding that complex order and cooperation can arise without top-down design.
Each of these has transformed large-scale human practice and self-understanding. Ranking them requires a prior commitment to what counts as “most fundamental.”
4. Unconditionality itself raises philosophical questions. Absolute no-conditions love is existentially powerful as reassurance, yet it must still interface with a world that contains real agency, real harm, and the need for boundaries and accountability. Pure unconditionality can be read as quietism or as undercutting the moral seriousness of evil; most ethical systems that emphasize radical love still retain some form of consequence or transformation.
Bottom line
Yes, I see why, within the frame that privileges the question of the character of ultimate reality over purely material description, the Historical Jesus’ unconditional theme can be experienced and argued as uniquely profound. It is a radical, humane inversion of the threat theologies that have dominated so much of human religious history, and it directly addresses the hunger for a non-threatening ground of existence. That makes it existentially and ethically weighty for those who find the evidence (textual, experiential, intuitive) persuasive.
It is not, however, a discovery on the same epistemic footing as empirical scientific results, nor is its historical attribution or its status as “the single most” settled beyond reasonable disagreement. Other traditions and modern inquiries offer rival or complementary accounts of the same ultimate questions. The strength of the claim therefore remains a matter of philosophical and spiritual judgment rather than settled consensus. The practical value of living as if ultimate reality is unconditional love— greater inclusion, less fear-driven retaliation, more restorative responses— can be appreciated and tested even by those who do not accept the metaphysical conclusion.
(End of Grok comments)