I think you need to take some time to reassess just what it is that you really want from Laura and the C's in regards to the Jesus question.
Based on previous sessions, and new information, it seems likely that there was probably an enlightened person around 2,000 years ago who told spiritual truth to those people looking for them. He gained some popularity but probably not widespread, since at that time, like today, there was probably a control system in place that censored such information, and in any case, it was not everyone's cup of tea (like today) and very few actually prescribed to it (like today). The screwballs that wrote the bible, or the first draft, may have used some *minor* aspects of this person's teaching, but it was wildly distorted and exaggerated and, in any case, the main aspects or template of the "Jesus" story as it has come down to us today as Christianity appears to have been nicked from the life of Julius Caesar.
That seems very much like a perspective I was searching for.
I agree. Clarifies better what was already thinking. I also believe these issues will continue to generate reactions until people start working the idea that nobody is going to save them. That is what the "inner child" raised in monotheism must know and work. Personally I have really wanted to communicate with family and friends about Julius Caesar, pass the links of videos and books, but still I need to know more because I can see possible attacks by them. Like as if to show openly that I do not believe in Catholicism is equivalent of lack of tact, and worse, lack of empathy (they would say compassion) for others, or cease to be a human. As if out of the belief empathy could not take place! You name it? How the church with morals of slavery took for herself something natural in humans as empathy?. I was reading the very interesting case of Laura Keynes, a descendant of Darwin (and John Maynard Keynes) who after passing through Buddhism and formed by an elite academic environment, returned to catholicism of his childhood because there was not normal people despised by atheist academicism. Even his conversion is a reaction to a book of Richard Dawkins. So, she returned to catholicism not because she believed that is a metaphysical truth there, but because there she can develop and embrace empathy toward all (or so I understood). She looks smart and with a good heart, so that "what is at hand" for she is Catholicism as a way of not allowing stolen her natural empathy that comes from inside. Although I think that way she fed the pathological church, since you can develop empathy fighting monotheistic principles, in civil society. Perhaps what lacks is just more information on pathological and psychopathic in religion, academics and elsewhere. Maybe even in some ancestor? Well, here are some links about it: