ApostateAbe

You said, "That is why mainstream Biblical scholars are so certain that Jesus instituted the Last Supper so that the cult could continue after his death..." and I am curious about who those scholars are.

Chili

You must always presume that Christians are wrong because there can be no such thing as a Christian religion in Christendom if Christian-ity is the end of relgion.

Why not call Nazareth the equivalent or sum total of Joseph's 'religion' which itself is great but for Joseph it was only a small town. This would fit the proper use of religion as a means to the end in the life of Joseph who was an upright Jew with a great deal of intergity that protected his inner sanctum as Jew whence the virgin [re]birth issued forth as the most basic of all human rights = metamorphosis that indeed must come from deep within = from the holy of holies that must be incipient from inner [re]sources.

Bethlehem was not a town and if it was, it was not the Beth-le-hem where the census took place. The sensus was the [non verbal] account Joseph gave of himself wherein he was empty as in non-rational and so was beyond theology as shown in an icon that the Catholic Church has about this journey to Bethlehem. In this painting, Mary (to whom Jesus was bethrothed in the convergeance of true minds that was foreshadowed in Gen. 2:23 long before he left Eden to live his life as a sleeper), was riding the donkey and so was in charge of Joseph's destiny who himself is shown to be 'draging his ass' behind the donkey which itself was the body of Joseph (= now the ego presented as dragging 'his' ass). It just shows that to get the Bethlehem is to be in a non-rational state of mind that so prevails (instead of becoming a 'squacker' at an evangelistic rally, which then is why I call Evangelists 'spiritual fornicators' who deserve a millstone because they so induce a rebirth from below = from the conscious mind instead of the subconscious mind . . . or from Eve instead of Mary = non virgin because Eve is the temple tramp in our own mind = what gives rise to the perpetual virginity of Mary).

That there was no room at the Inn means that his melancholy was persistent and that his lower house (conscious mind) remained empty except for the manger wherein Jesus was laid in Luke but not in Matthew (no swaddling clothes either to keep him pure). I could add here that the ox and mule are present to identify the passified Adam and Eve of the ego consciousness as opposed to chickens squacking in his dreams (as if he laid his first egg) that so prompted his flight into Egypt = no dreams please. Beth-le-hem means 'house of bread' in this context which designates the Alpha of Joseph that is retained by the woman as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." She here was send to the gate of Purgatory (Galilea they call it) to give birth to the sleeper within and Mary is just a name give to her. She was bethrothed (is not engaged as we know it) as the beholder of his dowry (or soul nature or TOL) over which she presided ever since Joseph became a rational being as if with a mind of his own in the TOK.

Of course the bible shows but not in a literal sense of the word. That is rather obvious and the angel of the Lord is not the Lord but the anti-christ. Mary is the queen of angels and Herod is the sum total of human pride, much like the Titanic was in Hardy's "The Convergeance of the Twain. So far so good but to be reborn from water and spirit is to have a bosom buddy in John the Baptist who was reborn of old to say that it was not a spur of the moment melancholy that befell Joseph but a persistent involuntary melancholy (see Albrecht Duhrer on this) that was intuit upon Joseph by way of circumcision as a member of his own lineage (= Nazareth). Baptism of Jews is and always will be wrong or next you will find Buddha's in our heaven.

Chili

The last suppper took place in the upper room to show that his richess were assumed into heaven where reason prevailed (Rev.14:13 as opposed to Rev. 14:6-12 .

mountainman

Hi aa5874,

The problem appears to be that those who believe in an historical jesus cannot explain the strange and utter dependency that their belief has in the writings and fabrications of the fourth century writer known as Eusebius.

The authenticity of Christendom rests upon the writings of a known forger.
At the end of the day what can this possibly suggest?

Compliments of the season.

aa5874

My position is that the "Church History" as presented by the writer under the name Eusebius is fundamentally fiction.

In the beginning the writer claimed that he only FOUND fragments but ended up with a whole LIBRARY or LIBRARIES of books and even a letter from Jesus.

How did these fragments turn into books to be in libraries all over the Roman Empire?

This is the writer under the name Eusebius in "Church History" 1 when the Libraries all over the Roman Empire were supposed to be filled with books on Jesus, the disciples and the bishops.

Church History 1