My greatest fault seems to be my superiority.
I cant help it; my ideas make 10 times as much sense as Rush Limbaugh's.
LOL - Okay... I'm not sure what that means (I don't recall bringing up Rush Limbaugh), but hey, there's nothing wrong be confident.
By the way, earlier I wrote, "just let me have my faith. Don't chastise me for it. (I'm saying you are--you're not. I'm just speaking hypothetically.)
Oops, typo, my bad... That SHOULD have read "I'm NOT saying you are..." Hope you understood.
You stated that there is a "measurable degree" of change in religious history. Yes, measurement is the stuff of science. So I was asking you to explain that measurement.
groan...fingers tapping, fingers tapping....
I have cited several examples. If I had the time or desire, I could look up verses of comparative scripture and post them. I'm not going to do that--and I don't think it's necessary. There's no mathematical formula, if that's what you want. There's simply common sense observation--which is legitimately "scientific" as a methodology. Anyone can observe that there's a rather noticeable difference in "attitude" between the doctrines of B.C Old Testament and A.D. New Testament.
In the Biblical stories, B.C., we are often treated to stories of an eye for an eye, an angry and vengeful God, and the need to smite the non-believers. In the New Testament, A.D., God becomes a kind and forgiving God. The attitude becomes one of pacifism: if someone strikes you, turn other cheek; forgive the tax collector and invite him to your table; forgive those who trespass against you for they know not what they do; and don't be hypocrite: "Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone." It's really not difficult to see or understand.
Revelations is more the exception. It steps back more toward the Old Testament style of "fire and brimstone" to make its point. Itís almost out of place in the New Testament. But it's also somewhat unique from the rest of the Bible in that it's strictly presented as a prophecy, as opposed to an accounting of historical events.
Revelations aside, the reality that there is a "softening of tone" between the two Testaments is a matter of obvious fact. If that doesn't answer your question, then the only thing I figure out is that you're attempting to play a silly game of "Gotcha!" with the *word* "measurable," it's not something that you can take a slide rule to. That make it any less obvious. I think your stretching a bit.
If, as Yanniru does, you say Jesus was trying to convert everyone to Judaism, then there's not point in trying to say the New Testament changes much
Jesus was a practicing Jew. He taught traditional Judaism to his followers. In his relationship with Jewish religious hierarchy, his desired purpose was to clean house and expose corruption. At that time, the TPTB in the religious and political hierarchy had become(much like what would happen later in the Church in Europe) corrupted by power, wealth, and the convenient protection of Rome. It was no longer about ministering to the people. Jesus wanted to expose the corruption and redeem the purity of Jewish faith for the people. That's why he was a threat to the powers that be--and that's what got him killed. But that immediately made him a martyr--and so the story spread--ultimately to Rome itself--and the rest is history.