This perspective would disagree, you're still framing the tales using team lines. For one to be good, the other must be evil. If one is not as blatantly aligned to one extreme - and woe as little as a single line mistranslated - then the other must also be reversed. This is about as polar of an interpretation as a magnet.

There is a larger idea behind parables and metaphors, one which deals with the ego's needs, instead of pretending it is not a factor - as most preachers of oneness seem to be fond of. Everything spoken to someone is also spoken to their egos, and as long as the ego has its metaphorical hands on the steering wheel, it is not the Self that will use the information for guidance - in fact, the Self doesn't need that kind of guidance to begin with - it is the ego that ponders, analyses and examines; the ego weighs options, makes choices and all in all thinks it's doing a stellar job of it. And to the extent it can, it is. But minor digression aside, what this alludes to in this context is that different ego makeups have different needs and wants. The ego requires a story it can relate to.

Try this one for a mental experiment: Go up to a person on a street and tell them the nature of reality. Do they believe it? Go up to someone in suffering and "perform a miracle" by dispelling the context of their suffering, are they now enlightened (aware of the Self)?

No, most people are sleeping so soundly that such a "minor" chirp of a bird won't do to wake them up. It might help, possibly, but then again, everything is possibly helpful. Under such view, Buddhism and Christianity have the numbers they do because they speak to the ego without threatening the ego. If oneness is standing in the equator, they go to those in the poles and tell them that the truth lies on the opposite end of the world. It speaks of the dissolution of the sense of separation, it teaches the ego - in it's own pace - that it doesn't have to bear the weight of the world. It gives the ego, who is desperate for something to do in order to cause something else, just that - a journey, if you will.

Buddhism asks the ego to explore what would it be like if it wasn't running the show, as the ego strives to silence itself, the Self can be heard. And from there, intuition can take over - one no longer needs to seek the opposing pole, for one has already found oneself.

Christianity points at the same. In prayer, the ego is silent and accepting of help and guidance. And who is there that can help? Again, once the thinking and doing of the mind stops, the voice of intuition can be heard.

Neither imply that realization of unity is guaranteed, however. They just point at the moon, if you'll look or not it's your perspective's choice.

Considering that perspective, the idea of interpreting the texts in relation to the intentions of their actors is pointless. The choice of experience is on the hands of the one experiencing it - not in the hands of the one providing the experience. After all, there is no "other" whose "intentions" are being "provided" as is, so how can that elusive "provider" of experiences even have hands to hold the choice? ;)