The historical Jesus didn't create a new religion!

There are many things one could say to this.
However here are some questions I would like to ask you. Are you really following the Torah? You don't have a temple, and you don't practice the commandments given in the Torah. Have you ever disobeyed the teachings in the Torah? Have you ever brought a sin offering? Have any of the Netzarim followers over the years ever brought sin offerings as required in the law? Have you followed all the cleansing laws? probably not. How will you ever be able to stand before God at the day of judgement? He is righteous and you are not. How can you see God and live? He is Holy and you are not.Your arguments about the word "new" are completely off the mark. It doesn't say "renew" it says "new", in other words it is not the same as the old one.Also note Matthew 5:17 Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

What does a "reconstruction" mean? What you think should have been written? Or what you think it might have said in the original?Jesus isn't just a prophet.Jesus didn't contradict the laws. He fulfilled them. He also supersedes the law because he is God. If God had wanted to he could have kept the temple standing, but he didn't, why? I don't think being sincere is enough. We are still in our sins. God is holy, we are not, we cannot be together. Throughout the old testament we see that innocent blood pays for the remission of sins. Does God contradict himself? Is blood not actually needed for forgiveness of sins? Then why did he institute it if it serves no purpose? Yes, God is gracious. But he is also holy. I think that generally the book of Hebrews would be a good book for you to read.btw, what does Deuteronomy have to do with this? You are just randomly taking a swipe at the doctrine of the trinity. How does it contradict? Anyway, they are not simultaneous. one comes after the other. So yes it supersedes the old covenant. Why? Because Jesus fulfilled the old covenant. A new covenant was needed to reflect this. Yes, this covenant is not fully revealed in the old testament but it is there (Again read Hebrews, and stephen's speech in Acts). Also another question for you, who is Messiah? Why is he the Messiah? What is he supposed to do?I agree with you that God is outside of time. Hence also why Jesus said That is everybody who comes to the Father comes through Jesus, whether past, present, or future. So yes, faith is credited as righteousness, as great people of the bible held to the hope to come. However, innocent blood is still needed. Jesus, paid that price.

Hi AndersI think you may have dug a bit of a hole here.
First you said the sacrifice is not necessary for salvation and then you point me to Isiah 53. If Yehoshua is the messiah then according to Isiah 53 he became a sacrifice for our sins. If sacrifices are not necessary the messiah becomes useless. In other words, he was killed in vain. He achieved nothing, because according to you all that God requires is to try and follow the torah. Here is another question: If we had a temple today would you go and sacrifice sin offerings or not?btw, what does Devarim 6:4 have to do with sincerity? Here is the verse in my bible
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD;"
somehow i am missing your point.Also while we are at it, from your website: oh dear! It is quite clear that the NT was written in the 1st century for reasons we can go into if you want. Really? Could they expand on what the mean please? ummm...so what? What does this have to do with the authenticity of the NT? Again, so what? And again, so what?
Is that all you have? This doesn't look good for you.