omar wrote:I don't know Felix
I think that there is more than one "Felix", more than one "Omar" because we leave only impressions, not our essences in our personal encounters. Thus every writer encounters Jesus for the first time. The Gospels, separated by time, place and even language, HAD TO present different versions of Jesus. The only reason that there were agreements was due to the existence of a written account of all his deeds, which they fleshed out for their communities.
More importantly though is the existence of various Christianities, some which remain in the Biblical narratives.
The important thing is what about Heaven? Because if there is a Heaven/Hell realities, eternal (unlike the current life), then EVERYTHING that has and can happen takes on a different meaning. For example, the flood. If there is no life after death then it was the permanent extinguishing of millions. If there is an after life then there were millions added either to heaven of hell, given their proper judgment, thus just placement. A Judge is not regarded as a criminal.
OK, so we agree there are different characterizations of Jesus in the New Testament [NT]. There are even disagreements about his deeds. The point is, that presents problems when we go to try and figure out if Jesus would condemn or condone Yahweh actions in the OT.
The heaven and hell question is a good one. Of course, that's a NT conception. The "Old Testament" that the church appropriated from the Jews doesn't depict heaven or hell that way. Personally, I don't think the idea of eternal punishment is moral. It's a disproportional to the crimes even of a mass murderer like Hitler. And without the possibility of repentance and rehabilitation it serves no purpose. It seems to be the projection of powerless people onto God that makes Him look like a person who is spiteful because He is unable to create an absolutely good universe. So, the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount wouldn't condone the teaching of the Jesus who preached eternal judgment.