Correct my NT Belief

I read into Jesus not something new but the acting out of proper behavior and iterations that were correct even before the Old Testament as far as right and wrong go. I don't see his behavior to be against the Sanhedrin or something. He was, to me, trying to help people to see what he innately knew -- And those things were flawless and true. 

In keeping with the theme of my Old Testament post, I want to draw in the fact that highlighting the principles of the ten commandments (as well as the rest of the law of Moses, the actions of the prophets, etc and so on) was to bring back the people to a relationship with God, to reconcile them to nature itself, to right instead of wrong and understanding instead of disbelief/undue self-imposed suffering. 

I wonder if my quarrel(do I present one?) lies in thinking Jesus did not bring anything new to the table other than his sacrifice (a reconciliation that was to happen inevitably) and that I still have yet to disprove to myself that right and wrong adhere cleanly to the laws of nature. ( I wanted to save "cleave to" the laws of nature, but thought that would sound too 'in the weeds.')

Jesus told people what they already should have known or opened the scriptures to them who did not have the ability to know. Every action he ever took was somehow perfect and without sin(his understanding of right and wrong unfathomable and resolute). 

Once more, I think Jesus could not have added something new except the fulfillment of reconciliation of human beings with God. I don't believe there to be a new law to nature or added truth, just elucidation and reconciliation. And for reconciliation to not only refer as we understand it to the word and impact of sin, but to the state of being recognizable as his creation - Corrected, adjusted, reallocated, un-"cloven." (Sorry, I had to say cloven once I thought of it. KJV!)

It would be akin to, not undoing wrath, but assuring it would not happen in both the again sense and in any time period sense, without undoing the linear aspect of time. It becomes eternal because it once was and is now perfect once more, the 'relationship with God' humans partake of. (Or am I wrong?) Laws of nature are eternal, insomuch as they cannot waver while creation exists.

The only "new" Jesus offered was in the sense of the 'new covenant.' But this defined means a restoration of fellowship with humanity, and not essentially an addendum. 

To point it out once more, since when I read this I have a hard time finding any qualms:

- I posit Jesus manifested nothing new (except his perfection while human, which I am not addressing here but need to refer to for clarity)

- I also purport that the laws of nature and creation itself (the tangible world around us) have an inherent aspect indelibly intertwined with 'right' and 'wrong,' divorced from human intervention (though we can impact it)

I think my beliefs are slightly askew as pertains to some biblical teachings. I came to these conclusions after a lot of deep thought and hope I didn't represent my lexical recitation inaptly. (Weird way to wrod it, huh? It made me smile so I'm not changing it.)

---

I believe if the Bible is literally true that Jesus existed. 

I'm not saying I don't believe the Bible is true. I'm just pointing out I'm rational.