A thought experiment on the establishment of Christianity
by Erasmus Bosche, 2021 CE
If one does a thought experiment in logic – and takes Noah’s Arc and Genesis 22 and Psalms 100 and 150 on face value – one comes to the conclusion that God is a deeply disturbed narcissist with violent sociopathic tendencies.
It would therefore be very logical to imagine – that God's son – Jesus found his father mentally unfit to rule a planet’s population. As Jesus’ philosophy appears to be based on love and forgiveness – therefore it is likely his fathers regime was the antithesis to his world view – and Jesus desired a “regime change.”
If one considers these issues – it seems very logical and highly probable – that Jesus was in fact an insurgent – and his gospel was propaganda for a coup d’ tat against his deranged father (God) – which unfolded in the fashion of a Shakespearean drama – and clearly failed. The fact that the dynamic of a “son attempting to usurp an unfit father” has played out repeatedly in history and fiction is worthy of note.
The fact that the dynamic of a “son attempting to usurp an unfit father” has played out repeatedly in history and fiction is worthy of note.
One more logical interpretation of THE CRUCIFIXION – (one of 3000 crucifixions committed that year as a typical means of execution by the Roman Empirical administration) – Is that Jesus, upon realizing his revolution could not succeed - chose crucifixion as a suicide designed to shock and/or torment his father – ergo - either in spite or in a futile attempt to awaken compassion in God and make him see the error of his ways. A Sacrifice. A grand gesture. The fact that this dynamic of “watch me blow my brains out – I would rather die than submit to your tyranny” has played also out repeatedly in history and fiction is also worthy of note.
Therefore, would it not be more logical (taking these events as historical fact) to say that “Jesus Christ died not for your (unborn future generations) sins, but rather for the sins of his murderous and mentally ill father? Then it could also be logical to assume his father had his son nailed to a cross and tortured as punishment for his temerity and disloyalty.
...the logical way to maintain power and control of the masses of the population – was to usurp his message.
Taking this thought experiment beyond the crucifixion – It is logical to postulate that if this was in fact the actual version of events – it would have been suppressed – and could not be told. It would have been incompatible with the concept of an infallible Deity; as well as a subsequent infallible Pope autocratically ruling a church that could command armies and accumulate vast power and wealth.
Depending on the circumstances on the ground at the time – and the rules at play with free will – Jesus' sacrifice may have alternately been intended completely or partially to incite the masses to rebellion against God. With or without the preceding dynamic – it would make sense – that upon the commotion caused by Jesus’ apparent suicide – the logical way to maintain power and control of the masses of the population – was to usurp his message. To use his legacy to form a church where continued autocratic control – enforced by fear of brutal reprisals and torture – could be maintained. This could explain the high turnover of “infallible” popes early centuries fo the Roman Catholic Church.
It is again worth noting – that historical “loops” of the dynamic of coopting popular “change” movements by intransient forces of a status quo are quite common in human history and politics. As they say, "history repeats itself."
One can easily picture Brian Cox portraying God in a boardroom – silencing his choir of praise – and asking his consiglieri, “So what do we do now about this fucking Jesus mess?”