WAS CHRISTIANITY INVENTED TO MAKE THE JEWS LOOK BAD? WAS IT FOUNDED BY A MOTIVE OF HATING THE JEWS?

There have been instances where people have founded new religions and Churches out of a desire to get revenge on the religion they have been born into. They may want to just make it look bad or stupid. They may want the new religion to compete with the other one. A religion may not appear out of spite but soon start engaging in spite to help itself thrive and be strong.

Mormonism based on the Book of Mormon which called Christianity the Church of the Devil was clearly malicious from the start. Henry VIII took a terrible hatred for Catholicism and formed a new entity which persecuted Catholics. Islam may not have started off nasty but became nasty when it started to fear bigger religions such as Christianity and paganism.

 Anti-religionist atheists are thought by Christians to be motivated not out of a love for truth or goodness but out of spite against the religion they left.

The gospels portray the Jewish religion as opposing Jesus's teaching, hating him and even getting him killed. When he rose from the dead and showed himself to be their lawful ruler and spiritual head and Messiah and saviour they still rejected him and dismissed his return from the dead as a hoax.

If Jesus was a fraud then clearly they were in the right.

The apostles could have lied that Jesus rose from the dead and left an empty tomb just to show the Jews up and get them accused of rejecting the Messiah and Son of God. Their hate was so great that they were willing to be beaten up for their lies. Jesus himself spoke of those who cross land and sea to make a convert. He was referring to the scribes and Pharisees who travelled in dangerous circumstances to evangelise. This is a clear declaration that the sacrifice of a person does not prove them to be good for he said the resultant convert was as bad as those who converted him.
 
The hatred the New Testament spews towards the Jews can lead one to surmise that the witnesses of the risen Jesus might have been lying because they wished to see the formation of a new faith that would destroy and undermine Judaism. They had a motive. Perhaps initially they told the lie and it got them followers and relations were good with Judaism. Later things turned sour. Their devotion to the lie grew and grew because of their increasing hatred for the Jews. They hated the Jews so much that they were willing to take beatings and traipse around the world to spread their evil gospel.
 
The gospels continually claim that there was no love lost between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. He portrayed them as being completely evil while he hadn't a bad word to say about the evil Roman occupation or prostitutes or tax collectors. So it was better to be a prostitute and kill your clients by passing on syphilis to them than to be a minister of the Jewish faith! The apostles were Jews themselves and their following such a religious bigot would certainly mean that they harboured a lot of hatred for their religion.
 
The gospels blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Matthew says the Jews said that the responsibility for the blood of Jesus must rest on themselves and their children. Some of the gospels actually say the Jews crucified Jesus. John says it. Crucifixion was not a Jewish method of punishment.
 
The gospels present Jesus as calling the Jewish leaders hypocrites, bastards, evil and children of the Devil. The gospel of John deployed a lot of ink on recording Jesus' disagreements with and attacks on the Jews when it could have focused on more edifying stuff. In John 6 Jesus tells the Jews that unless they accept him they have no life in them - life means life with God. So they are dead to God unless they believe.
 
Matthew says it was falsely claimed by the Jerusalem Jews and the guards who watched Jesus' tomb after his death that Jesus was stolen by disciples while those guards slept at the tomb. One wonders how he can expect us to think guards would say they did that! Surely their reputation mattered more than what happened to Jesus? And how could they know who the thieves were if they slept? Was the story just made up maliciously to hurt the Jews? This makes out that the Jews were so hateful that we are expected to believe anything about them and indeed should. The Jews behaving in such a way and being so shameless would involve virtually the whole nation. There is no room for saying that Jews in general are not meant to be tarred.

Matthew accuses the Jews of lying about the tomb of Jesus being raided by his disciples who took the body. He says very little about the apparitions of the risen Jesus but devotes time to accusing the Jews of lying about how Jesus vanished from the tomb. Even if Jesus had been stolen it didn't stop him rising from the dead bodily. So the point of it all was to insult and malign the Jews.

Paul complains all the time about the Jews and the Jewish Christians and says he wishes the knife would slip when they practiced circumcision.
 
Acts portrays the Jews in a very bad light. It lies that the Jew Gamaliel told the Jews to leave the Jesus believers alone for if their movement was not from God it would disappear naturally. Gamaliel would not have uttered such a ridiculous statement. It was silly in itself. Paganism was stronger than Judaism an that was not considered a sign that it had God's approval. And no Jew would have regarded Jesus as having any chance of being from God when he was so hostile to the Jews and made the Jews fear that the Romans would turn on them all over him. The lie about Gamaliel can only be explained by Christians inventing the story to make Jewish antagonism to Christianity seem more unreasonable. They were made to seem to be ignoring the voice of reason in Gamaliel.

The early Christians eagerly hoped that Christ would soon come to overthrow the Jews in Jerusalem. They pined for the cataclysms allegedly prophesied by Jesus. All scholars agree that the early Church thought the return of Jesus was imminent.
 
With all that sectarian hatred, the temptation to lie about apparitions of Jesus would have been too great. Hatred can make many people seem virtuous - they do good because they want everybody to dance to their tune. They can be better at "good" than the truly virtuous. Secular sources and sources outside the New Testament show that the Judaism of the time was far from being as rotten as the New Testament would make out. Indeed it suffered nobly under the Romans and produced some of the best and most appealing ethical codes and wisdom that the world had ever seen.

FINALLY TO THE CHURCH - Anti-semitism has to be the real reason why Christianity was founded and the apostles told an untruth about the risen body to embarrass the Jews. Sectarianism leads to sectarianism. When are you and the Church leaders going to repudiate Jesus' abuse of the Jewish leaders and people in the New Testament? In Matthew 23 immediately after saying there was nothing wrong with Pharisee and scribe doctrine and people should listen to them - they prescribed capital punishment for gays - he launches into a tirade of abuse against them that can only be explained by anti-semitism. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets" an example of tarring a race with what their ancestors did.

Jesus' glorification of the Law of Moses and the John gospel says Jesus claimed to be fully present in the Old Testament times and giving the law to Moses when that Law was an evil murderous force against the Jewish people reminds us of how people on the left extol equality and are then caught out being racist. It is like using rights as a tool to oppress your own people. Jesus for example knew that stoning adulteresses among the Jews to death meant killing women who were more likely than not pregnant.