I have a few queries about what you posted.
A brief look into the history of the Torah and it's authors seems to suggest that scholars cannot agree on a definitive answer.
"...modern scholarly consensus rejects Mosaic authorship, and affirms that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries"
You say the Torah portions are "all words spoken by Yeshua" and seem to criticise Christianity and Judaism for "man made parts". Yet it seems the scholars would suggest man wrote the Torah over many centuries, and with many authors. If it did indeed take centuries to write, who's to say how accurate these words spoken by Yeshua have been written down by the hand of man?
As for "true God" has this not been an argument made across the centuries? The simple concept of "us and them" that has repeated time and again throughout human history and led to racism, wars, prejudice and religious persecutions.
As Hinduism is believed to be older than the Torah, why would you claim the Torah to be the path to finding "the true God". Would you consider Hinduism to be meaningless or blasphemous?
I found this excerpt to be quite interesting, and I'll admit it's only the history of religious texts that I find intriguing, as opposed to the myths that make up the texts themselves:
"The practice of Judaism didn't really become uniform or codified until the Babylonian Captivity, at the earliest (around 600 BC). Prior to that, archeological evidence shows a lot of variation, including the worship of multiple gods (which is certainly against monotheistic Judaism). It would be hard to defend that the Judaism practiced in 1200 BC (if indeed the people mentioned in the Merneptah Stele were Jews) was the same as that practiced when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written, a thousand years later. Some elements remain common, but much of the religion has changed."
At the end of the day - humanity and our ego is driven by change. To say that the new testament can't contradict the old doesn't seem to factor in just how many generations have passed in between them being written. As such, I think it's very difficult to claim validity for one text and disregard others, when they were not only written so long ago, but also when they were written was generations after the events took place. If I was to try and write down an event that happened say 300 years ago and relied solely upon an oral tradition - how accurate would you say my writing would be? Now, you could say the word of God is infallible, but man isn't. Especially when it involves many men across many generations.
I personally think religions have it right when they say there is more to our existence than what happens on earth. Also proverbs, myths and stories to teach morality is a worthwhile practice. But this whole "us and them" or "follow my word or be damned" is what has really caused most of the issues with religion throughout history. Just look to the world events today and you still have different races, religions and denominations killing each other because "we're right, you're wrong."
I also think that if this "second coming" were to ever happen. How many would even believe? How many would accuse them of being a false prophet or heretic?
Then again, perhaps the above sums up my points entirely - perhaps we are too sceptical. But I don't see that as a bad thing when you're literally dealing with ancient history. Life is always open to interpretation. Yes, having "truths" or guarantees might make you feel safer. But all religion requires faith, and that is never going to be grounded in undeniable proof. We're too far removed from the events to ever be able to say with any certainty "this is right" or "that is wrong".
I'll end with this - supposedly, throughout history there have been thousands of gods. Even in modern times we are well into double figures when it comes to deities currently being worshipped.
Ed