POLITICS of the day. . .

While it remains a factual consortable that most mythical “origins” stories are not compatible with anything it should be understood that ‘Jesus of Nazareth' wasn't a Christian. . .

Thus it’s to also be understood that “Christianity” was perhaps born during the time of Socrates some 250 yrs. before the anointment of Pontius Pilate as the new governor of Judea. . .

While it should also be understood that the Synagogues having made something of a precarious peace with the newly appointed governor had little or no interest in the doings of a newly anointed self-styled Meshuganda that the radicals called the King of Lords . . .

It should also be understood the Synagogues having consolidated a somewhat precarious peace with the newly anointed governor ‘Pilate’ harried no incentive in asking for Barabbas ("Barabbas” being an anarchist) or any other kind of motivation that might've involved them in the anarchy of the radically motivated Christians. . .

While it’s thenceforth understood that “Christians” were the only ones having an incentive in asking for ‘Barabbas’ thus furthering their cause for civil disobedience or perhaps the disruption of a radical rioting. . .

While it must therefore be unequivocally understood ‘Christians’ were the only ones whom may’ve had a motivation in the tempting of Christ or the “Everlasting Son of Bethlehem”. . .

Perhaps what the church has yet to discover with-in all the ‘hub-bub’ of today’s political schemias or its motivation of political crisis’s that the outages mustn’t outweigh the ravages of the most unfathomable kind or the haphazardous of political crimes that disparage themselves from being a participant of the true adamancy that has existed from the beginning of immortality that’s found in the truthful teachings of a Messiah or ‘Zoroastrianism’ or the Buddha or Mohammed, etc. having always been formally decreed in the existence of a Universal citizenry, or the thoughtful forgiveness of an infinitesimal cosmos . . .

While it's not authentication that distracts from the existence of an infinite Messiah (or Mohammed or the Buddha or Zarathustra, etc.) but rather the insistence of an exactness that’s infinite of “form” belying the virility or vitality of a preservation that’s existent of the creativeness of an affinite imperfect well-being. . .

Thus it had never occurred to anyone in those days the whole style of questioning or the illogical assumption of the directive employed was demeaning of a self-loathing or perhaps its humanistic reasoning that exploits the cosmic forces of “only God hast to know what ‘God’ hast to know” as what consumes the affinities of all things undeniable or forthwith praiseworthy of that which understands the meening of politeness or the connotative reasoning of an infinite duality which hopefully will enlighten the greater logic of an infinitesimal tomorrow. . .

~fin~