streetbob,
If you review what's been said before, I will gladly respond to your arguments, but only if you're adding instead of repeating, and only if you take into account the mindset of who you're standing before and that it is, despite being imo based around an extremely unlikely if not impossible historical event and a fictitious polemic against an historical community (by this I mean polemic against the pharisees, not the christians.)
If you become the accuser, this is a court of law and that will not go well for you. If you petition the court on your behalf by denying the court's a priori assumptions, that will not go well for you. And in either of those cases it's unlikely I will respond to your argument. Your most glaring disregard for an a priori assumption is for this one:
"1. Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah. "
Pirkei Avot
And it continues along the line which Judaism has traditionally seen the Mosaic tradition (the written and oral Torahs) to have been passed. Even from an historical perspective it would be a bit inaccurate to deny the legal nature of much of the Torah. From a textual perspective alone it would mean ignoring quite a bit of the text. From a Christian perspective I've never really heard that argument before either, only that the law had a much different purpose.
You also seem ignorant of much other than polemic against the pharisees instead of their actual worldview, like the nature of aveirah and teshuvah, the tempering of G!d's attribute of justice by His attribute of mercy and the role the sanhedrin played in this paradigm.
And beyond that, claiming that faith in a human being removes a person's obligations to G!d isn't going to go very far. There is a similar perspective presented in pirkei avot, but it is quite different:
"6. Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah said: Whoever takes upon himself the yoke of Torah, from him will be taken away the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly care; but whoever throws off the yoke of Torah, upon him will be laid the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly care."
The yoke of Torah of course here means accepting the mitzvot as understood by the written and oral Torahs, that is, accepting G!d-given law. The government it refers to is not the one viewed as Divinely sanctioned but instead the foreign one viewed as man-made. As you can see, this also places the law in a spiritual light, as a path that brings one close to G!d, and not as a burden. If you do not take this into account, it will not go well for you. Imagine telling a person who knows for himself that by sticking to a strict monastic practice that he gets much fruit in the form of spiritual development and closeness to G!d that his practice is a burden which accomplishes little if not nothing for him.
But, if you are coming before the court not as a Jew, but as a present-day Christian then there is no problem and you are not on trial. Only if you are coming before the court as a Jew who has been drawn to what would become Christianity (of course some suspension of belief is necessary since you're projecting your personal beliefs backward onto a community that still seemed to be lacking a cohesive identity or dogma, just as I am only projecting my sense of what is most likely the pharisees actually believed) is there any issue. If you're a gentile then there's no trial.
