Old testament v. new testament

[everythingafter]

Interesting idea.

For some reason or other, God decided to set this universe in motion (some way or another). When you meet God, you can ask Him why you were created or anything for that matter. We have to work with what we know, we know that we are in existence because of God (assuming you take that position) so lets look at your theology.

Why do you consider the OT to be plan A? and God sacrificing His son plan B?
Please provide some verses.
However, read Romans, it is a brillant book! and explains a lot of your questions. Read it with an open mind and dont look at like a fundamentlist would and you will see the incredible plan of redemption.

I'm saying that logically, the entire plot doesn't make sense, and I've just shown how it doesn't. And here, believers will say that God has his reasons or only God can answer "why." But one doesn't need to be omniscient to shoot holes through this one. We know only that we are in existence. We haven't a shred of evidence that God is behind it.

Yes, plan A and B might be a good way to put it. Here's tons of verses on the promise or covenant of God to Israel. The fulfillment didn't take place in OT times nor has it yet taken place, and while the Middle East continues to be a bloodbath, we can be quite certain it may never take place. While God did rescue Israel from Egypt, what about the Babylonian conquest and then Rome?

Yet in Psalms 105:7-13, 42-45, we have:

7 He is the LORD our God;
His judgments are in all the earth.
8 He remembers His covenant forever,
The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations,
9 The covenant which He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac,
10 And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute,
To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11 Saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan
As the allotment of your inheritance,"
12 When they were few in number,
Indeed very few, and strangers in it.
13 When they went from one nation to another,
From one kingdom to another people,

42 For He remembered His holy promise,
And Abraham His servant.
43 He brought out His people with joy,
His chosen ones with gladness.
44 He gave them the lands of the Gentiles,
And they inherited the labor of the nations,
45 That they might observe His statutes
And keep His laws.
Praise the LORD!

Jews and Christians will always attempt right the problem by saying that the promise is conditional on Israel's obedience to God. But the original promise to Abraham contained no conditions, and in this passage, the psalm said "that they might observe His Statutes" not "if they observe His statutes." I know there's plenty of passages in which God isn't pleased with Israel's disobedience, but the original covenant in Genesis 12 contained to such conditions.

And so if the story of Christ was the only one that really mattered for Christians, why not just start with creation, the fall and then go straight to the manger? The plan A, plan B dichotomy makes sense on one level because in the OT we have Israel obtaining forgiveness by animal sacrifice in which the high priest, by a quite laborious process, would once per year offer a sacrifice for the sins of the entire nation. Whereas in the NT, a better, some would say, more civil and personal plan is delivered, that of personal savior to whom you pray for forgiveness, i.e. praying to God through Jesus Christ. Although in the new covenant, we do have the unfortunate introduction of eternal torment for not believing.

Some, like Jack Miles, take a literary approach and claim that the OT presents the story of a failed promise (Israel not being made a great nation), while the NT is an attempt by God, in the person of Christ, to make good on his promise to make a path toward salvation, this time, not in the form of physical conquests, but spiritual atonement. So there's at least two ways the NT is an attempt to improve on the old. I'm not making the case that it actually does improve on it, however. Just playing devil's advocate, ironically.