1) The Rambam did state that he w2as writing it for anyone struggling with emunah and if I recall correctly he also stated he was discussing things that he considered “Maseh Merkava” and therefore cannot be distributed widley nor can they be understood by everyone.
2) Actualy the opinion of many is not that Chazal did not write down many things based on the science of their time, rather it is whether they knew that was wrong and merely intended to use it to encrypt “Pardes”.
3) As for why the Rambam rejected Aristotle’s notion’s of the universe and where the Rambam felt one can use allegory please see Torah, Chazal and Science.
4)I do not know what you are referrring to.
If you mean to tell me that saying the Rambam was deliberatley writing in a “conceaed manner” is something that is “infantile. Well then according to you the Remah, The Rogatchover Gaon, The Radziner, Rav Elchono Wasserman, and Rav Yerucham levovitz all took an infantile position.
I hope for your saake you don’t mean to say that.
If you yourself mean to say that it is infantile to understand Chazal as referring to esoteric concepts and deliberatley writing in allegorical form is “infantile”.
Well the Rambam states that someone who believes so is a “fool” and “cursed” (I qouted the Rambam word for word earlier and provided a link).
5) and 6) I really don’t think you understand my point.
In summation.
True the many took the Moreh Nevuchim at face value.
And since they took it at face value they argued forcefull against it and stated that the Rambam for what ever reason was not able to learn Kabboloh (again see the Chida in Shem HaGedolim for an intersting reason why) and wrote cerain things.
This included the Ramban, Rabbeinu Yonah, The Rivash, The Rashba, The Chasid Yaavetz, The Vilna Gaon, Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh and a host of others.
The Chida also brings down severel Gedolei yisroel who stated that the Moreh Nevuchim was a forgerythough the Chidah himself disputes that.
There were those Gedolei yisroel who stated the Moreh Nevuchim is not to be taken at face value and therefore accepted it that include the Rogatchover, Rav Elchono Wasserman.
To give you an idea about how forceful the opposition was Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh wrote that MN did more damage to Klal Yisroel then Moses Mendelsohn, this is the work that Slifkin advances as “mainstream”.
(Again I am always afraid to write on these things since I am afraid someone may miinterpet what I am saying as giving my own opinions or rendering judgment ch”v.
Far be it for me to give opinions on thse things. But also far be it for me when people seem to feel taht they have the right to distort and misrepresent our Mesorah.)