Historical analysis is not a judgement of truth. It is a judgement of fact, which is expressly different from the concept of truth. Simply because I am interested in exploring the larger historical context of the Bible in order to better understand Jesus, his followers, the community of believers, what they believed, the texts, the authors, etc., is explicitly not the same thing as avoiding its core message. I must reiterate that what you interpret as the core message in scripture is not necessarily the same core message that all other Christians interpret. This is even true today, with each “non-denomination” and denomination having its own emphasis of faith, taking conflicting stances among themselves on matters some find central to their beliefs. For example, how do you feel about the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s stance permitting same-sex marriage and the ordination of members of the LGBTQ community? There is clearly a question here about defiance of Law, as is often cited from the Old Testament. Do you think this means that PC(USA) is an illegitimate form of Christianity?
God’s love is not unconditional.
Though the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth imply that through grace God forgives and saves, the notion that God dispenses love unconditionally and equitably is a lie. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Moses, of David — this same god is not the merciful, peace-loving deity which Jesus makes him out to be. In point of fact, the distinction between God (“the Father”) and Jesus is so stark that one is left to wonder if the act of being made mortally manifest changed the supernatural entity to be more merciful and more understanding than the temperamental, crazy-ex-level jealous God of the Old Testament. No wonder Ridley Scott thought to portray the Hebrew God as an insidious preteen who taunts the reticent Moses.