Thank you Sarah, for your considered response. I confess I'm not entirely sure where the first point ends and the second begins, so I will attempt to adress it as a single point.
But first, I do not seek to undermine anyone's faith. I am simply attempting to look at the historys from a rational perspective. You will agree, that the inclusion of emotion in any historical argument makes reason impossible. It seeks to force us to take sides. I am simply attempting to address the issue of the apparent antipathy between the Jews and the Christians, from a rational perspective, based upon what we know of the actual history, rather than a theological perspective.
To your point about Pilot. That is, of course true and has been recorded as such. The Romans were quick to exact terrible punishments on those who transgressed their law, but they were a society, based upon law. They would refuse to impose their punishment upon someone, known to them as a rebel, but who had not broken their laws. Blasphemy, was not a serious crime under Roman law at that time.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htmWhat this demonstrates is that, up to that point, the Romans had no serious problem with what Jesus was doing.
They changed their minds when Jesus was accused of treason or insurection, which was the crime for which he was eventually executed. From another perspective, it could also be argued that Jesus was fermenting insurrection against the then king, by apparently claiming to be king himself. That would have amounted to the same thing.
But, since the Romans did not initially arrest and charge Jesus with treason, as evidenced by the insistance of Pilot that he had broken now law, the charges would have been based upon subsequent information.
However, these are simply the details. As such they could be argued over until protestants love catholics.
The point I was making is that the reason Jesus was turned into the Romans in the first place, then essentially, fitted up under false charges was because those in authority among the Jewish clergy feared what he was saying.
If you read what he actually said, the only point which could seriously cause them such alarm as to seek his death, would have been the injunction to pray in a closet, in contradiction to Jewish practice then and now.
It was as simple as telling the people that the bosses are rubbish.
Further evidence for this can be suggested by the effective hijacking of the Christian movement post Jesus.
It essentially split into 3 parts. The Ecclesiastical, which was the foundation of the church, the Zionist and the literalists.
The literalists seem to have ended in Roman arenas where they were heard, by thousands, singing as they were mauled to death by wild animals. Many were also put int cages, covered in pitch, hung on street corners where they would be set fire to as street lighting. I understand that there were a number of instances where these people were given opportunities to recant. But since that would mean swearing to abide by Roman law, including waging war, they preferred their grizzley fate.
The Zionists seem to have sought to keep the movement Jewish. insisting upon their traditional laws regarding food and mutilating baby boys' genitals. Along with the Literalists, the Zioists Christians seem to have disappeared.
The Ecclesiasticals set up the church, appoint themselves as leaders then arguing endlessly over issues such as, was Jesus literally god or infused with the spirit of God and similar.
Again, I fully acknowledge that there were many different Christian Ecclesiastical groups, many very disparate. But what all had in common was their insistence upon their own doctrines and the imposition of a clergy.
