I'll check it out, and your blog as well. I'll be happy to discuss things with anyone. I've been active as a pastor and theologian (PhD) for some time -- I'm 58 -- so definitely have some thoughts on these things.
For me, the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Emperor Trajan in 112-113 is the first genuine extrabiblical mention of Christians and the most accurate representation of their original beliefs and practices. Which I admire very much.
I'm pretty sure Eusebius is the forger of the Testimonium Flavianum, and the entire ridiculous passage is fake, not an "interpolation". The whole "living Jesus" thing, for the Romans, was to fabricate a lineage from the nonexistent Peter, the first nonexistent Pope, to the present line of predators.
Marcion seems to have brought forward the first writings, with the imaginary Paul who never meets any earthly Jesus and that matches Pliny's description of a spiritual Christ and not a person who actually lived.
Mark, as the first Gospel, in its original shorter version, contains an extremely important ending. The women leave the tomb and tell no-one because they were afraid. That is why nobody knows of any resurrection until Mark tells of it in his Gospel.
The period from the first Ecumenical Council called by Emperor Constantine with the forger Eusebius in 325 CE to the end of that century, the Canon of the Catholic Church was established. So inspiring material like the Gospel of Thomas was destroyed. That one was especially dangerous because it preached the Kingdom of God was at hand. There can be no guilt-tripping and lording over a laity for entry to heaven when we are already there.
The question for any serious scholar becomes, given the criminal conduct of the Catholic Church (Donation of Constantine, lol. Indulgances, etc.) in fabricating and forging it's own history, how do you sift through the stinking pile of manure to obtain the Christian Insight?
I've given you mine, and it is in that crucial Pliny-Trajan correspondence. And it is tremendous.
It does not speak to Polyamory. But I don't think it needs to because Christianity at that time was extremely simple and had only two common features across homes that practiced it: they decided they should keep the fruits of their labor instead of giving it to people richer than them.
The Eucharest was a feast, not a wafer and shot glass. Because instead of giving away their grain and meat, money, doves and all manner of ridiculous tithing to "the man", they just ate what they produced themselves.
When you say "body of Christ" you are downing a leg of lamb. When you say "blood of Christ" you are chugging to quench a thirst, and that feast begins coursing through your veins as you talk about what good people you want to be with not lying and stealing, being honest in trade, etc.
We can infer a great deal from such a simple philosophy. You don't build elaborate churches and drape golden robes over plenipotentiaries. You build your own house. Eat your own food. Meet with your family, neighbors, and friends.
A few key principles can address all the important questions in associating with others. You don't need a thousand pages of clearly contradictory rules and regulations. The Bible is a political document. When the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Judea merged, they consolidated beliefs and that is why there are doublets like the two creation stories, one right after the other.
It can't be both, and a lot of the material is borrowed from Sumerians and what not eg Epic of Gilgamesh anyway. We ignore mountains of crazy stuff. One of the great questions at Nicea in 325 was how castration affected you. So they decided that if you cut your own nuts off, you could not be a Christian. Someone else had to cut your nuts off. Eunichs for Christ!
The Trinity? A political settlement. Factions did not agree if Christ was a spirit (first version), a man who lived (later version) or God himself and they made everyone happy. He is all three. What a farce.
Emperor Constantine created an Empire-wide religion in order to register every person with a local parish so that taxation, military draft, and government surveilance could be conducted. The original Christians had no Churches, that was the whole point of being Christian. They tolerated wide variation in practices beyond the feasting and promising to be good people.
So why did Constantine build all those Churches for Christians? For every person in the Empire now required to be Christian? To co-opt it, and use it for administration of the Empire. My God, it's oldest tradition, the Eucharist, became a sick joke.
So where do you start, where do you break off from official Christianity of any kind, really?
Just as soon as you start building churches and taking tithes instead of feasting with family or those you consider same - and pledging to be good, I figure. As per Pliny's description.
Poly people can do that.