"groan...fingers tapping, fingers tapping.... 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."
Scott, in some ways you are a master of shifting sands. The original statement you made was about the book's measurable effect on history. Now you're faulting me for not "observing" the change that was in the book itself...rather than history.
"Jesus was a practicing Jew. He taught traditional Judaism to his followers."
Traditional Judaism such as refraining from stoning a "harlot," flexibility to work on the sabbath, and contending in public with the temple authorities. What is tradition to you? It sounds to me as if He discussed more universal truths in the context of his birth religion.
"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."
What's TPTB (for us lunkheads).
When is something as vague as mystical law not a corrupting influence among creatures with appetites?
"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-"
If I understand, you're asserting Jewish faith was more than sincere but tribal religion under continuous assembly in a time of primitive literature and record-keeping...to you it was PURE. What was pure about it? What is PURE?
You're smart, but your assertions are huge and we don't have enough reason to believe your assertions as they stand.