We see that the Christian borrow or rather Christ son of to their religious name and uses him as the center of their religious focus. But in essence, is this an action rooted in fakery, fallacy and disingenuous? It is a ruse in the sense that they make a claim to one thing on their lips or even in their hearts,(since I do know their hearts), but their actions undermine what they say is their relationship with Jesus. They tend to go in the direction of Saul/Paul, even with the slightest of simple observations;
1.) Jesus never came to destroy the Laws of Moses and his revealed Book, the Torah.
a,) Under the Laws, we observe in the first commandment that God is single Unit. A whole not divisible.
b,) We also observe that God warns against taking up partnership with Him.
c,) We also see that God declares that no graven Image, physical or conceptualised.
d,) We also see that God declares that He is jealous against any of these above and much more.
As to the Book of Moses, we see in Deut., 6 : 4 that God is One. Then in the Testament of Jesus, the Christian Bible, and in Mark 12 : 29, the same was declared by Jesus Christ the Messiah of the House of Israel son of Virgin Mary, that God is One Lord. That One Lord is the very Lord of Jesus himself, Who had sent him. We also see that Jesus declared that he did not come to change the laws of Moses, but to fulfil it. And that even a single jot of it will not be tamperred with by him, but whosoever does that, (and we know it could be done by his companions while he was still alive with then, before he was raised up), that person will be the least in the Kingdom of God. That is for instigating and encouraging the acceptance of doctored Moses book and laws. We would know that to be least in the Kingdom of God is not a honorable position. It indicates disaster to me. If am wrong in my thought please correct me with good supporting materials.
But all we have after Jesus was lifted up by his Creator, is an arrival of Saul who claimed that he received an enlightenment, and changed his name to Paul, a more non Jewish ethnic sounding name, so that the roman overlords can be unsuspecting. He Paul, in time turn the foundation of the message of Jesus and the previous prophets/messengers on its very head:
To do so, he advocated a multiplicity of God personality content; Instead of One whole invisible Creator, we now have 3 godhead/persons in this single equation of God existence, yet each person of this godship is separate and independent of the other two! Paul advocated and forcibly established as a Christian rule and belief, which is their cumulative doctrine, the destructions of dietary laws, so everyone can eat whatever they want, which the permissibility to eat Pork and its byproducts, the circumcision law of removing the foreskin from the male Instruments, and finally he brought about the concept of the permissibility of death on the cross as a ransoming of sins, instead of what the Children of Israel know it as a curse on the soul that dies on the cross. By this, the truth about God rescuing Jesus from such a death was now shunned as unbelief.
Paul in his galant effort to make the movement of Jesus acceptable to the Romans and the rest of greater Middle east. instead of its confined place which is within the boundary of "Palestine" of its day, he had singularly made the Torah of Moses irrelevant. He singly with the true companions of Jesus who are forced to tow his lines of 'teaching,' wrote the bulk of the New Testament! A simple observation will let us in, about what I am putting forward: Even though the four (4) Gospels are claimed to be the sayings, actions and the accounts of whereever went, we see that they are not so much different from one another. It would have been very scholarly journalistic efficient if instead of the similar to almost identical gospels be just one comprehensive Gospel! If the four are presented, why not the 11, while Judas Iscariot is already discounted and discarded for his betrayal? We we see the acts of the apostles and Paul who was not a true apostle, because was not part of the group that was with Jesus while he was living, breadthing and preaching his gospel: His gospel is a document we do not know anything about, but I guess bits and pieces must be in the four (4) 'according to gospels!'
But let us give the four gospels, regardless of their redundancies in relationship to one another and the gospels as part of it, all of these five (5) parts of the New Testament will still be less than 50% of the same New Testament. Consider that I have been generous here, to make a point. The remaining over 50% is what Paul and his cohorts had played a part, as iconoclasts against the teaching of Jesus and all the previous prophets/messengers.
Considering all of the above, it is no wonder that a religion is developed different and separate in name, day of worship, place of worship and tenets and beliefs, from what Jesus did!
I ask again, who is more important to the Christians, and I simply have avoided the goriness of blood and all that goes with death and salvation claims of the Christians about Jesus, Jesus who was a true prophet and messenger, with a miraculous birth or Paul who came and turn everything over its head, at the same time developed a different Jesus, idea of reverence of God and all that go with it? Who is the true singular hero here and why do you have the other in place along with him?
Please do me a favor, don't post off topic. When you disagree do it with relevant materials. Just don't criticise, do it with intelligence! Thank you.