So what!, the first Mormons were Christians, so suggesting the rest of the Christians are not going to become Mormons is a misrepresentation?
Rose, the first Mormons were as much Christians as the first Muslims. In the same way that Mohammed took a number of Old and New Testament ideas and weaved them in to the Quran, so Joseph Smith took a number of Old and New testament ideas and weaved them into his Book of Mormon.
Just because a few Jews joined Jesus in the beginning, has no bearing on the vast majority of Jews ( then and now ) who have no intention of becoming Christians.
And as some here love to remind us, an argumentum ad populum doesn't prove anything.
I see no reason why they should.
They have a beautiful religion all of their own.
To let that go, would be a shame.
IMO Jesus and Christianity, is contrary to Judaism.
The problem with this argument is in the answer to the question 'Why were the Jews chosen?' The Hebrew Scriptures make it clear that they were chosen in order to act as God's witnesses to the nations amongst whom they lived - 'the world'. Those same Scriptures make it clear that they failed to fulfill this purpose and, as a result, they were punished in a number of ways. Furthermore, over the centuries, a series of prophets such as Jeremiah, Haggai, Micah, Isaiah, et al were called with the express purpose of calling the people back to that purpose. Sadly, over the centuries, their leaders became so inward-looking that God did what he had said he would do if the situation required it - and came to earth himself as the promised Messiah.
Note that I have not at any point referred to the New Testament - the coming of the Messiah was prophesied on more than one occasion in the Hebrew Scriptures and all the other information I have given is consonant with Jewish thinking prior to Jesus' birth.
Judaism may well be a beautiful religion, but when (and this accusation can equally be laid at the feet of the Christian Church at various points through history) the followers of the religion fail to follow through on the purpose that they have been given by God, that religion becomes somewhat directionless.
Christianity has been the biggest preventative concept ever, in preventing Jews from claiming the teachings of Jesus ( Plus his own unique Jewish contribution )as their own(as an ordinary faulty rabbi and discussing his ideas).
Yet, as you have already pointed out several times, many Jews refused to accept Jesus' claims of his divinity and his teaching that built on teir own existing Scriptures. In other words, to claim, in one post/breathe that the Jews chose not to accept him as the Messiah, and then to claim in another post that "Christianity has been the biggest preventative concept ever, in preventing Jews from claiming the teachings of Jesus" is one of the least cohesive arguments that anyone can provide.
This is because not only because of his claimed divinity, but the disgusting way Christians have behaved in his name, going right back to 250 AD or as soon as Christians gained enough power to do any real harm.
Yet again, you suggest that the Jews refused to accept him and his claim of divinity in the early first century, only to then suggest that events of some 200 years later (though I'd suggest that the real damage was probably not done till several centuries later) were the cause of the Jews' unwillingness to accept his message. Which of the two is it? Are you suggesting that actually a number of Jews actually took his teachings on board in those initial 170+ years only to decide to jettison them when the church began to teach ideas that, whilst reflecting the way that the Jewish religious leaders had regarded and treated Jesus during his lifetime, seemed to be laying the blame on the people as a whole?
Denying it happened is a bit like holocaust deniers, misguided.
Contrary to your interpretation of my posts, I have never denied that the Church has - over the centuries - treated the Jewish people appallingly.
Regarding your quote(s) from Origen, have you ever considered that, by ensuring that the people in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' execution were seen to agree with their proposal of the death penalty, those self-same leaders were trying to tar their own people with that particular brush? Remember that many of those same people had welcomed him into Jerusalem and effectively proclaimd him as king only a week or two earlier.
This is a Catholic timeline shocking really.
And that is why I tend to treat institutional timelines, be thy religious or political, ancient of modern with a sizeable pinch of salt, preferring to get back, as best I can to the original documentary material.
PS: I'm going to have to work out how best to respond to your other points (in red) tomorrow, as the new quoting system doesn't allow me to automatcally quote them. I'll probably have to cut and paste them into a new post.
