It (and most natural weapons however gained) are based on size so if the wielder gets bigger the natural weapon gets bigger same for smaller. The closest example would be strong jaws which of course (because of how nat weapons work with size) says the attacks are as if the creature were bigger and not the weapons.
So...yes?
Really? Where does it say it sets the base damage of the weapon?
Alright. It says "damage", then. Just like every other weapon.
If you try to argue that a monk's damage is set and cannot be changed because it's "determined by table 1-2", then the same can be said about daggers, repeating crossbows and dwarven urgosh.Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type.
--this is why the warpriest's sacred weapon is different. The damage is based on his level, not the weapon itself.
If strongjaw is just a variation on lead blades, it doesn't work for all the various reasons stated. If strongjaw alters the attack action and not the thing that is actually making the attack, then it works fine for both.
I feel like I've answered your line of questioning regarding the difference between the monk's (or anyone's) weapon damage and the warpriest's sacred weapon damage as clearly as I can. I'd be happy to continue this debate along side the main one in this thread, but I would appreciate being treated with more civility (unless the snippy "I've-got-you-now"tone is purely projected, at which point disregard).