All your arguments are based on an uncritical assumption that the "new testament" is an authentic continuation of the "old" and equally inspired. What if you did not assume this off the bat? Your "proving" that the "new testament" is a continuation of the "old" by quoting its own claims is a logical fallacy known as "affirmation of the consequent," and moreover assumes the dangerous theory of "progressive revelation," wherein revealtion starts out low and progresses to ever higher and more important levels. This has led not only to an unending number of religions claiming to be "the final stage" but to liberalism itself, which holds that newer is always superior. Judaism, to the contrary, believes in yeridat hador, the notion that Revelation began at the absolute peak and goes down from there.
Since I know where you come from, I know the depth of your belief. I wish there were more Torah Jews who believed with your intensity and simplicity. But unfortunately for too many Jews "live and let live" has gone from being a necessary pragmatic strategy to a theological ideology ("tolerance" of all--except the "intolerant").
I don't believe that you believed as I do. Because I don't believe that you could abandon your faith in light of such certain revelation from the God.
"Your "proving" that the "new testament" is a continuation of the "old" by quoting its own claims is a logical fallacy known as "affirmation of the consequent," and moreover assumes the dangerous theory of "progressive revelation," wherein revealtion starts out low and progresses to ever higher and more important levels."
While I do have the benefit of knowlege of the New Testament. The foundation is indeed the Old and does not need the New to interpret it. Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah Chapter 53 are crystal clear to anyone who wants to read them. You don't need the New Testament telling you what the Old said to understand the Old.
The Old says repeatedly that "none are righteous". The old says "atonement is in the blood". The Old says that the righteous servant would "bare the sins of many". The Old is the foundation. If the New dissagreed with the Old, I would have to throw the New out. But it doesn't. It fulfills the Old. Unlike the Koran or the Book of Mormon which must cast doubt on the Old and New in order for the new work to be accepted, the New Testament never casts doubt on the Old. I reject your claim that Christianity is built upon "Progressive Revelation". More may be revealed in Christianity than in Judaism but not that much more. And nothing contradictory. What does Christainity teach that wasn't in Judaism? The Messiah? There. Love your neighbor? There. Forgive others as God forgives you? There. Revelations of the End Time? See Exekiel and Daniel.
Take a look at the following site. That does a better job of showing how often Christ is reflected in the Old Testament than my last couple of posts to you. The number of times that Christ is either prophesized, foreshadowed or a Type of Christ exists, in just in the first five books alone is astounding.
And I find no discord between the two. I see the same exact God in Yahweh of the Old Testament and Jesus of the New Testament. Loving, Merciful, Just and yes Righteously Angry at sin. The God that ordered the destruction of the Canaanites is the same God that drove the money changers out of the Temple with a scourge. He's the same God that prophesized the destruction of Jerusalem for failing to recognize the time of their "visitation". He's the same God that will take the world through terrible judgements in the coming Tribulation.
Yet he always stands ready to forgive, to cover man with His own shed blood, if man will repent.