what if there was no such thing as an Old Testament? no prophets no Moses, how would you react to the gospel of Christ?

my point is... every lie needs a truthful foundation to stand upon.

the problem for the lie, is when the base doesnt support the lie.

I am certainly no Bible scholar, OP, but I always thought
that the reason why the Christian faith INCLUDES the
"Old Testament" is because the person--Jesus of Nazareth.
--is the actual fulfillment of the prophesized messiah
described in this book that contains part of the Jewish
Torah. Jesus, then, is from the lineage of Moses and therefore
it is important to include these earlier prophets as it
reflects on his arriving at the point in history that he did.

The Old Testament, then, legitimizes the claims by
the followers of Jesus that he meets the points set down
by the various prophesies about his coming. In that sense
it is kind of like a "pedigree" so that people not only
have the whole story of his life, his parables and his
miracles...but they also have the history of his people
(the Jues) and why they claim he is "The Christ." (The
Christ, by the way, is a TITLE not his actual name.)

That's what I understand. So, for me, the answer would be
without the Old Testament, the "Kingship" of Jesus would
have less credibility for his being anything but a great
teacher (which is a wonderful thing to be...just NOT how
Jesus is presented by Christianity--he's the Son of God.)

Cheers!
TheOracle'sCookie

The very scriptures which you claim to search daily....testifies of Jesus Christ. And yet here you are claiming otherwise.

Do not the scriptures state that no lie comes from the truth? If you believed that then of course 'every lie needs a truthful foundation to stand upon' would not even begin your convoluted basis of argument

yeah imagine christians coming to european gentiles.

have you heard about the gospel of jesus?

- who?

jesus... you know the promised king of Israel?

- the what now?

NT didnt come from the OT, it came from rome.

It's clear the gospel found the diaspora. All of the world heard of Jesus Christ, telling this world a major truth that the gospel was sent unto the kings and sons of Israel in the nations. They heard and responded. But I guess you want us to not consider why they did respond and pretend that they had no connection to him and Israel?

Or do you want us to conclude that since rome presents another gospel, another Jesus and another spirit that they invented the gospel? Really? Do you always propose throwing out the baby with the bathwater?