HaShem rested when He had finished His creation. He hallowed the day and made it holy. When Yeshua finished his work of the new creation, it was only fitting that that day should be celebrated as the new sabbath.

[MessianicArt.com: I have to disagree with this respectfully. The Sabbath is Saturday. There is nothing wrong with going to church on Sunday though.]

     What do you expect of the messiah of G-d?  Do you wish him to pass by the sick and not help, and say, 'I am sorry, but satan has you bound, and I cannot loose you, and the devil's kingdom must be allowed to stand for another day?'  NO! The messiah is the deliverer, and he looses the burdens and frees the oppressed. The kingdom of the devil cannot stand against him when he arrives,  not even for a single day!

     ''Son of man,  prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say to them, '. . . Woe to the shepherds of Israel that feed themselves!  Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat, and you clothes yourselves with the wool. . . but you do not feed the flock.
     'The diseased you have not strengthened, neither have you healed those who are sick, neither have you bound up that which was broken, neither have you brought back that which was driven away, neither have you sought out that which was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them.
     '. . . For this is what the Sovereign L-rd says: I Myself will search for my sheep and look after them. '   (Ezekiel 32:1ff)

    By critcizing this work, which caused the people to praise G-d, aren't Yeshua's critics really arguing on behalf of the extension of the devil's kingdom, asking that it should be prolonged? And thereby preventing the issuance of praise to HaShem?
     And it is permitted to do good on the Sabbath?

     Do similarities in belief (or apparent similarities) always mean that these beliefs were necessarily borrowed?
        The Essenes, for example, lived communally, took their meals together, dressed alike, and had no Temple service; this roughly parallels the precepts set out by the Greek philosopher Iambulus (c. 300 B.C.E.), whose proposed just such ideas for his concept of a perfect society.
        The Pharisees, meanwhile, put great stress on the concept of learning as a way to piety. This is in contrast to the earlier Jewish tradition (and the teaching of the prophets) that repentance is the way to piety. However, the Greeks, and especially the Platonists, taught that men might be made better by more learning.
        The Greeks also held to the notion of an unwritten law, the law of the gods, which was supreme over any written codes. For example, in 'Antigone' the heroine violates the written law and buries her brother despite the king's injunction against it ('could any mortal override the gods' unwritten and undying laws'; 'Antigone' 454-455). Likewise, the Pharisees stressed the importance of an immortal  but unwritten code which would govern their religious practices.
        The Greeks venerated their philosopher class, who did no work, but were supported by the community at large. These philosphers were to spend their days discussing moral principles. Compare this concept with the status afforded to the scholar class by Pharisaic Judaism (who were also to refrain from common work, while they were supported by the entire community.)
        These sects--the Essenes and the Pharisees--developed into final form during and directly after the Hasmonean period, that is, the time when Greek and Hellenistic influence in Judea was at its greatest, and when there were many Jews seeking to find a synthesis between the two cultures. (The first Hasmonean rulers, for example, had only Hebrew names; the later ones had both Hebrew and Greek names. Efforts were made to arrange an alliance with Sparta on the basis that both Jews and Greeks were the same people--it being not unusual in the ancient world for non-Greek nations to try to claim Greek affiliation.  And so on.) Are we to assume that there were no Jews who were familiar with these Greek ideas? Or that these Greek concepts exerted no influence whatever on the development of these Jewish sects? Or are the parallels just coincidence?

    No, he never says that it is wrong for the Jewish believers (as opposed to the gentile believers) to continue with their traditions or to have themselves circumcised. (For example, he had Timothy circumcised.)  He only stressed that observing these traditions  per se were not  means of salvation.
     If the people of G-d are to be a spiritual people, then they have to be defined by spiritual criteria; for example, by their faith--and not just by any physical criteria (such as their physical descent) or any outward  manifestations or displays.

     Nothing. If one feels that one is honoring HaShem by doing so, then do so. But such observance--and one's own strivings and efforts--do not make one 'good enough' to merit salvation or HaShem's gifts. No sage, no matter how pious, was ever granted access back to Gan Eden because of the meticulous manner in which he kept the halakha, or had the sentence which was pronounced against Adam revoked. (Obviously something more is required.) Neither did all the observances of the Pharisees of the Second Temple period prevent the disaster which overtook them in 70 C.E. (If the people at the time of the deportation into Babylon were exiled for NOT keeping the Law, and for idolatry, but were allowed to return after a mere 70 years, then what lack was found in the people of the time of the Second Temple, that they should be exiled, and that their exile should last for 1900 years?) If piety and observance of halakha were enough to attain redemption, then it would have been attained already. For haven't the Jewish people abundantly shown their attachment to the Torah, and their zealousness for keeping its injunctions? Haven't they, through the centuries, done as much as anyone could have done (as much as HaShem, to be fair, could expect of  mere humans)?

     But HaShem is quite clear that his gifts are never merited:

     'All our 'righteousness'  is as filthy rags.'   Is. 64:5 (6)

     '. . . It is not for your sake, O House of Israel, that I am going to do these things (i.e., regather Israel and restore her as a nation), but for the sake of My Holy Name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.'    Ezek. 36:22

     'I want you to know I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign     L-rd. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, O House of Israel!'    Ezek. 36:32

     Pilate was deposed by Rome for his malfeasance in office and for ordering a massacre of the Samaritans. He was probably required to commmit suicide.  Thus, if there was an appeal to Roman sensibilities, it should have sided with the official verdict and made Pilate look even more cruel, and have pointed him out as an exception to Roman justice--or at least given some indication, some hint, of what his future fate was going to be. Instead, there is nothing of the sort.
       Further, the Roman soldiers are shown as taunting Yeshua, crowning him with thorns, and mocking his kingship. Had there been an intent to curry favor with the Romans, these passages would have been omitted.

      First, there is no evidence for the gospels (at least the synoptics) being written after 70 C.E. In fact, the Hebrew background (both linguistic and cultural) suggests much earlier dates.
      The only reason for insisting that they be dated after 70 is that Yeshua predicts the fall of Jerusalem. However, many others were also predicting the fall of Jerusalem (see, for example, Josephus 'Wars', VI 5.3, where another man, also ironically named 'Yeshua', predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. He is arrested, turned over to the Roman governor for punishment and flogged, but finally released as mad.) There is no indication that these accounts must have been  made up after the fall of the city.  And, if Yeshua was indeed who he said he was, then there is no reason why he should not have been able to prophesy.
     Further, the gospels do not focus exclusively on the Pharisees. In Matthew--which contains many denunciations of the Pharisees (especially in chapter 23)--they are not even mentioned as being present during the trial and death of Yeshua. If Matthew was trying to focus on them as the main opponents of the new sect, why didn't he give them prominence in this account? Instead, the High Priest and the Sadduccees are the principal players. This faction had ceased to be of importance after 70, so there was no need, if Matthew was attempting to attack opponents of the new sect, to concentrate on them.

     Matthew uses material from both prophets, Zehariah and Jeremiah.
In Jeremiah 19:1-13, Jeremiah is told to buy a pot from a potter, and then take it and smash it in the valley of Hinnom, as a warning against Jerusalem because of her sin, specifically, for the shedding of innocent blood. In Zechariah 11 the shepherds of Israel and even the people of Israel (the 'flock') reject the L-rd; therefore he tells his prophet, Zechariah, to throw the price they had paid for him (30 silver pieces) to the potter. The reason for this would be uncertain, except that potters, being workers in clay (the word 'yoser', or 'shaper', can also mean metalworker), might also be those who would fashion idols. The money thus paid to Zechariah is betrayal money; the 'good shepherd' is paid off, valued at only the price of a slave,  and the people are delivered to their idols.
     These themes  recur in the story of Judas. Yeshua is innocent but he is to be killed.. He is the true shepherd of Israel but he is rejected, and the leaders would rather pay 30 silver pieces than have to deal with him.
     One possible reason only Jeremiah is mentioned and Zechariah is not, is that one version of the scroll of the prophets may have begun with Jeremiah, whose book is the longest (by word count) of the prophets; mentioning Jeremiah, then, might simply be another way of stating, 'according to the book of the prophets', and not of designating Jeremiah specifically.  Or Zechariah may not have been mentioned because the heart of the message--about the shedding of innocnet blood--is to be found in the Jeremiah passage. (Elsewhere II Chronicles 36:21 credits Jeremiah with a passage, ie, Jer. 25:12, 29:10;  though the original source for his words is to be found in Leviticus 26:34,5).

     This speculation derives from the possibility that his surname, or nickname, 'Iscariot', comes from a form of 'sicarii', who were a radical nationalist group. If Judas had been, in other words, 'Judas a member of the sicarii', then one can fashion a motive for him from his political zeal.  However, there are other possible sources for his name. A 'skortja' or a 'iskortja' may be someone who wears an apron, or a leather apron which a tanner would wear. (Nedarim fol. 55:2) Thus, Judas might have been called, 'Judas the tanner', or 'Judas with the apron'. (There was a Simon the tanner mentioned in Acts 9:43, and Judas was the son of a Simon; John 12:4). And since these aprons sometimes contained pouches for money,  Judas may also have had this name because he carried the money for the talmidim.
     In addition, there is a word, 'iscara', which can perhaps refer to strangling, or being strangled. (See Berakhot fol. 8:1) Thus Judas might also have come to be known as 'Judas who was strangled' because of the manner of his death.
     There are some who wish to find similarities between Ahithophel, the friend of David who betrayed him and then hanged himself (2 Sam. 17:2,2; 23), and Judas.
     The gospels give no motivation to Judas other than that 'the devil entered into him,'; and anything beyond that has to be speculation.

     According to the traditional practice (Shabbat fol. 12.1, Yerushalmi), 'R. Akiva fixed a day for an onah (ie, a natural day) and a night for an onah; but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar ben Azariah said, 'A day and a night make an onah (a natural day), and a part of an onah is as the whole.'   And later in the same place, 'R. Ismael reckons a part of the onah for the whole.' Therefore, one full day and parts of two other days could be referred to as 'three' days (or even 'three days and three nights').