Jesus claimed to be a Jewish Messiah and was later misrepresented to create Christianity

First of all, I will begin with presentation of perceived problems with Christian narration.The Birth of JesusImportant to both 'Judeo-Christians' and Christians is the legacy of Jesus that both sides claimed for their Messiah - his direct descent from the David house. It can be however inferred that narration in the New Testament goes beyond that. Both parties claimed the Messiah would be "born under a star" (later Messiah claimant's title "Bar Kokhba" is a direct reference to this), and the birth was prophesied to take place in Bethlehem. However, Christian narrators probably got wrong the prophecy about the Messiah being a "naseroi", in the meaning "of Nazareth". As explains Eisenman, quoted by Baigent and Leigh in "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" (1), "Naseroi", 'Nozrei ha-Brit', the 'Nozrim', the 'Nasrani' and the 'Nazoreans' all designated individuals vowing to keep the Moses Law intact. It literally meant "The Keepers of The Covenant".Wrongly believing that Mary's and Joseph's hometown (and consequently, Jesus's) was Nazareth, narrators of New Testament came up with a story which justified them moving as far as to Bethlehem (compare yourself the distance on the map: http://photos1.blogger.com... ), supposedly to avoid census and firstborn children massacre ordered by Herod, when in fact the story obviously tried to place Jesus's birth in the prophesied town, by all means necessary. My argument is this: the crucial factor for the whole story to make sense, Herod's command to kill firstborn so that prophesied Messiah wouldn't dethrone him (as if Herod feared such silly notions!) hasn't been attested by any other sources than the New Testament itself. The other missing point in this problem is that supposed census (which Gospels attribute to a wrong date) would not affect Galilee in any way.Considering that country-wide massacre of firstborn males up to two years old would never go unnoticed even by Roman scholars, not to mention the Jewish, this is an obvious lie to make sense out of this story. Judeo-Christians, however, never had this problem because they never claimed "naseroi" and various variants of this theme meant that his parents lived in Nazareth. Up to this date no conclusive research can tell us whether such a town or even a village existed in the first place, at the time.Judeo-Christians simply knew what 'naseroi' meant, and in fact they were called by this name very often ("Nazoreans" was an official name for early "Christians"), until the movement was hijacked and renamed to "Christians" after the "Christos", possibly by Paul and his followers, who intentionally placed Jesus as a "Christ" figure in the center of the new religion. This was a total blasphemy to the Jews, who'd only consider "Nazorenes" a sect because they didn't share their belief in Jesus as a promised Messiah. Both Jews and Nasorenes, however, didn't believe in Jesus as a God, which will be discussed in the next phase of the debate.Jesus the Pharisee?Hyam Maccoby claims Jesus didn't teach anything Pharisees themselves wouldn't preach, and that New Testament intentionally demonizes their group. From early childhood, it seems, Jesus was observant of the Law, discussed it in the temple as would Pharisees do, subscribed to various beliefs of two Pharisaic schools. For example, Jesus mirrors Hillel the Elder's teachings: "Do not judge your fellow until you are in his place." (Mt 7:1-5) "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." (Mt 7:12) In other passages, Jesus rather agrees with the other major Pharisaic school teachings, Shammai's: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Mt 19:9) But anyone, Pharisaic or not, could've believed in that. So what would be best indication that Jesus was a true Pharisee? "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Mat 5:17-20) Radically opposed to Christian narration that Jesus abolished or made the "Old" Covenant obsolete, and that he inaugurated the era of "New Covenant", Maccoby claims Jesus in all his actions shows he wanted to keep it intact, just as did Pharisees. Virtually nowhere (besides one curious mention of the "New Covenant" in the Last Supper, which Maccoby thinks is narrated and didn't really happen anyway) did Jesus speak of applying "New Covent", of making Moses Law obsolete so that non-Jews (or those non-observant of Jewish laws) can join into ranks of his followers. Most often it is Paul who claims it, in his Letters and in Acts, that The Law no longer needs to apply to believers.One last thing: most Christians would interpret "till all be fulfilled" to suit their case, that is, claiming "all that there is to fulfill" to refer to Jesus's death and resurrection, even though just a moment ago Jesus makes clear what moment does it refer to: "Till heaven and earth pass" - an obvious reference to the end of times, the day of judging, the Apocalypse. I agree with Maccoby and Bart Ehrman in particular, that Jesus's teachings were apocalyptic, and that they constantly referred to "The Heaven's Kingdom" as if it was just around the corner. The process and death of Jesus The most crucial point of criticizing Christian narration is the reasons for which Jesus supposedly was tried and then sentenced to die on the cross. First of all, Jews had the right to operate a judicial body - to judge, make trials and even put someone to death, e.g. by stoning. If their goal really was only to kill Jesus and if Romans had no intention of killing Jesus, they would carry out stoning of him on their own. They needn't to rely on the Romans. Curiously enough, New Testament writers absent Romans from any responsibility, and on the other hand, go as far as claiming Jews would free an obvious murderer, Barabas, on the basis of historically non-attested custom of freeing a convict; hell, even claiming "His blood shall be on us and on our children!" (Mt 27:25), only to get Jesus dead. On Romans: Pilate has been represented as a very civil man who even (sic!) washes his hands before sentencing Jesus to death, so that it is clear he had nothing to do with killing him. He appeases the bloodthirsty mob, he is blackmailed by the Sanhedrin, to sentence someone as unimportant as Jesus or else... they would tell the emperor! Blackmail the prosecutor of the country which occupies you - that doesn't seem plausible at all. What does history tell us about Pilate? Josephus, for example, claims it was he, not the Jews, who was bloodthirsty, who wouldn't hesitate to order Roman soldiers to strike rioting Jews. (2) What difference would it make for him to sentence one man such as Jesus to death? None. But it would actually make sense for him to defy the Sanhedrin and not to sentence Jesus. Josephus claims Pilate was not very fond of them.Now: why would Jesus be so loathed by unnamed mass of "Jews"? And why the whitewashing of Romans? The answer is: he wasn't loathed by just any Jews. He was loathed by the Sadducee, who collaborated with Roman occupiers. They were the rich legalists whom Jesus describes as "generation of vipers". As Hyam Maccoby notes (3), NT authors intentionally wiped out any mention of conflict between Romans and the Jews, they foreshadow it, and instead put "Jesus vs The Jewish Establishment" on first plan, the "Establishment" supposedly being Pharisees, even though they were only popular among the common folk, did not hold many high positions. But they also foreshadowed real conflict with the establishment. As Maccoby explains (3), Jesus must have possibly entered Jerusalem in early autumn, only to sack the temple, and to get caught during spring. The NT narration intentionally shortcuts from this triumphal entry to his trial and death on the cross, omitting other events, and presents sack of the temple as if Jesus only chased away some money lenders. Was Jesus really crucified then? I can't possibly know. But one thing I know for sure is that if Romans really crucified Jesus, they had a really good reason. For starters, they didn't crucify just the common villains (murderers and thieves among Jesus on the crosses are a major historical implausibility by authors of New Testament), but people who openly defied Roman state. They were sentenced to maximum humiliation to deter any such acts. If it really was the case that Jesus was crucified by Romans, then the conflict between corrupted Roman-applied Sadducee authorities and Jesus was intentionally misrepresented. Jesus must have openly defied Romans and Sadducees, and intended a miraculous revolution against the occupiers. There's plenty of quotations to support such a view, even if Jesus wasn't obviously the 'military partisan' type of Messiah, but a 'God will perform a miracle to help us if we make ourselves pure enough to him" one. In the next argument I will respond to counterarguments and point to few quotations which make absolutely no sense to be mentioned by the Apostles, but rather make much more in Maccoby's hypothesis. Sources: (1) - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...(2) http://sacred-texts.com...Chapter 3.2 - interestingly this is a fragment just before famous "Testimonium Flavianum"(3) http://www.positiveatheism.org...