POLITICS of the day. . .

While it remains a fact that most mythical “origins” stories are not compatible with anything. . .

It’s also to be understood that ‘Jesus of Nazareth' wasn't Christian. . .

It’s also a historical fact ‘Christianity’ was born some two hundred yrs. before the appointment of Pontius Pilate as the new governor of Judea. . .

It should also be understood that the Synagogues having made something of a precarious peace with the newly appointed governor had no interest in the doings of this newly anointed self-styled “meshuganda” . . .

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

It should thenceforth be understood that “Christians” were the only ones having any incentive or motivation in asking for ‘Barabbas’ thus furthering their cause of civil disobedience or disruption. . .

While it must unequivocally be understood that Christians were the only ones who may’ve had incentive or the motivation for the tempting of Christ or the “Everlasting Son of Bethlehem” . . .

What the church hasn’t discovered with all the Chub-bub in today’s prices; or that “Climate Change” mustn’t outweigh outages; or that perhaps the church hasn’t discovered how the ravages of the most unfathomable kind separates itself from being a participant in any of the haphazardous schemas or politically motivated crimes that have existed from the beginning of times immortal. The truthful teachings of the Buddha, or Jesus of Nazareth, or ‘Zoroastrianism’ or Mohammed, etc. have always been more formally represented in the existence of a Universal citizenry, or the thoughtful forgiveness of an infinite cosmos . . .

While it's perhaps not “authentication” that distracts from the existence of a messiah (Mohammed, or the Buddha or Zarathustra, etc.) but rather the insistence of an exactness of affinite duality (‘form’) which belies the virility of the preservation, or its preservation an infinite well-being. . .

While it never occurred to anyone in those days the whole style of questioning or the illogical assumption of the directive employed was also demeaning towards a self-loathing or perhaps a humanistic reasoning that exploits “only God hast to know what ‘God’ hast to know” as that which consumes the cosmic affinities of all things undeniable and forthwith praiseworthy of that which also understands the meening of our politeness or that ‘m-e-a-n’ and meening are “two” separate words in a connotative reasoning of infinite worlds that will hopefully enlighten us toward the greater logic of an infinitesimal tomorrow. . .

~fin~