Was Jesus, Himself, an Abrahamist?

[Dimmesdale]

"Then understood they that He bade them not to beware of the leaven of bread,
but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." - Matthew 16:12

I will admit that I am biased against the Abrahamic tradition. But I think this is a valid criticism, for which I don't recall getting any type of good answer to.

If Jesus was so critical of the Jewish authorities regarding how they espoused God, then doesn't this cast a bad light on the Jewish tradition as a whole? After all, how could they have gotten things so bad, so backward? I understand that hierarchies tend to be corrupted in many cases. But still, if God entrusted a divine revelation to a Chosen People, wouldn't the source material be handled with greater care? Wouldn't the higher-ups be the least corrupted, being the custodians of God's own revelation? How could they be so wrong that Jesus calls them "vipers" and such?

I remember early on in my life thinking, "Well, perhaps this is the logical conclusion of Abrahamic faiths, that they end in sectarianism or the powerful controlling the weak." And so forth. It still boggles me that all the greatest custodians of the Jewish faith up to the time of Jesus would reject Him, especially if He was the final culmination of the Jewish scriptures. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I welcome any and all input here. Thanks.

[The Tanager]

"Then understood they that He bade them not to beware of the leaven of bread,
but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." - Matthew 16:12

I will admit that I am biased against the Abrahamic tradition. But I think this is a valid criticism, for which I don't recall getting any type of good answer to.

If Jesus was so critical of the Jewish authorities regarding how they espoused God, then doesn't this cast a bad light on the Jewish tradition as a whole? After all, how could they have gotten things so bad, so backward? I understand that hierarchies tend to be corrupted in many cases. But still, if God entrusted a divine revelation to a Chosen People, wouldn't the source material be handled with greater care? Wouldn't the higher-ups be the least corrupted, being the custodians of God's own revelation? How could they be so wrong that Jesus calls them "vipers" and such?

I remember early on in my life thinking, "Well, perhaps this is the logical conclusion of Abrahamic faiths, that they end in sectarianism or the powerful controlling the weak." And so forth. It still boggles me that all the greatest custodians of the Jewish faith up to the time of Jesus would reject Him, especially if He was the final culmination of the Jewish scriptures. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I welcome any and all input here. Thanks.

Free will and a desire to go with one's own (limited) wisdom. The material should have been handled with more care; the ones entrusted to study it the least corrupted, but their self-centered desires for power of varying types get in the way. It happens in every single human endeavor. But not all Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as we have stories of Pharisees becoming followers of Jesus.

[Dimmesdale]

"Then understood they that He bade them not to beware of the leaven of bread,
but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." - Matthew 16:12

I will admit that I am biased against the Abrahamic tradition. But I think this is a valid criticism, for which I don't recall getting any type of good answer to.

If Jesus was so critical of the Jewish authorities regarding how they espoused God, then doesn't this cast a bad light on the Jewish tradition as a whole? After all, how could they have gotten things so bad, so backward? I understand that hierarchies tend to be corrupted in many cases. But still, if God entrusted a divine revelation to a Chosen People, wouldn't the source material be handled with greater care? Wouldn't the higher-ups be the least corrupted, being the custodians of God's own revelation? How could they be so wrong that Jesus calls them "vipers" and such?

I remember early on in my life thinking, "Well, perhaps this is the logical conclusion of Abrahamic faiths, that they end in sectarianism or the powerful controlling the weak." And so forth. It still boggles me that all the greatest custodians of the Jewish faith up to the time of Jesus would reject Him, especially if He was the final culmination of the Jewish scriptures. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I welcome any and all input here. Thanks.

Free will and a desire to go with one's own (limited) wisdom. The material should have been handled with more care; the ones entrusted to study it the least corrupted, but their self-centered desires for power of varying types get in the way. It happens in every single human endeavor. But not all Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as we have stories of Pharisees becoming followers of Jesus.

I am reminded of, in our current time, the Catholic Church....

The CC has also endured great corruption, and yet Jesus said "the gates of hell" would not prevail against her.....

How much more than, do you not think, that the earliest forebears of God's intimate revelation would have been guided in such a way that most would have been able to carry on a tradition that was intact with the earliest possible knowledge of what God intended. That there wasn't some system of checks to keep the "bad leaven" at bay.

Some things to ponder.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #3]

But (if Christianity is true) a group was guided in such a way that the tradition was carried intact within the midst of the mess. Jesus said to watch out for the bad leaven; He didnt claim that it would be destroyed.