The penalty for some sins was death. There were four methods of execution, and if the criteria for execution (which are very stringent) can't be met then G-d carries out the sentence Himself. Then there are sins for which only G-d has the right to carry out the punishment.
However, there are other sins for which the penalty is lashes. But I doubt that the court was authorized to lash anyone for every single sinful thought a person had.
All Notzerim assume from the outset that chr*stianity is true and that the "new testament" is an addendum to the TaNa"KH. With this erroneous assumption (known in logical terms as "affirmation of the consequent") they then read the entire TaNa"KH from the perspective of Paul. But Paul was wrong and his ideas are alien to the Torah. And while we're at it, Catholics tell Protestants that "innate total depravity" is alien to Paul, and Eastern Orthodox tell Catholics that "original sin" is alien to Paul, so the Notzerim can't even agree on what Paul believed!
The Jews did not rip the "new testament" out of the Bible. Chr*stians added it. Once this is done and the reader accepts its authority from the outset the entire interpretation of the TaNa"KH is twisted into something alien.
Why do chr*stians "prove" their beliefs by quoting the "new testament" when the people they're arguing with don't even believe in the authority of the "new testament?" They seem to think its authority is "self-evident." It is NOT. You can no more "prove" the "new testament" by quoting it than you can "prove" the "holy qur'an" by quoting it.
Fundamentalist Protestantism, from which I was spawned and which I respect so highly, has spread a love and reverence for the TaNa"KH throughout the world. Unfortunately, it has adulterated it with the "new testament" the point that many people seem incapable of accepting a TaNa"KH that stands on its own rather than as a "prophecy" of another religion that was to come along later and "fulfill" it.
Perhaps it is because the target audience of most of the New Testament was Jews and that the writers of those scriptures were pretty effective in converting Jews to Christianity. (Why reinvent the wheel?)
Matthew wrote his gospel for Jewish Christians and Jews who were familiar with the Old Testament, that they may know Jesus was the Messianic King foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures. It is evident this was the case, because Matthew's gospel contains more quotations of and allusions to the Old Testament than any other book of the New Testament.Source http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp Gospels at a Glance
This chart shows some of the unique characteristics and key differences between the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Writing Matthew Mark Luke John Audience Jews Romans Greeks Gentile Christians Author Tax collector and apostle. Also known as "Levi." Missionary with Barnabus and Paul. Called a son by Peter. Greek doctor who travelled with Paul. Wrote Acts as sequel. Fisherman, apostle, and elder. Wrote 5 NT books. Died at an old age. Date Written 37-68 A.D.
Probably written after Mark.40-65 A.D.
Probably the 1st gospel written.59-61 A.D.
Probably written after Mark and Matthew. (Luke 1:1-3)80-98 A.D.
The last gospel written.
Content Matthew Mark Luke John Depiction of Jesus King of the Jews Powerful Servant of God Perfect Savior of Man Son of God Key Words Kingdom, Fulfill Immediately, Authority Son of Man Believe, Life, World, Father, Son Key Verse Matthew 27:37 Mark 10:45 Luke 19:10 John 3:16 Characteristics Evidence to prove Jesus was the promised Messiah. Fast paced and visual. Careful and historical. The gospel of belief.
No argument can be seen in your response. Your response appears to be purely rhetorical, in that no evidence is presented to support any claim made, implication or inference; one thing does not appear to follow from the other.
You appear to be throwing opinions around similar to dollars that grow on trees. Your entire reply is nothing more than me stating that "brown is blue."