If you can't see that you've just established that some form or other of Christianity is "true" (in this case, Protestantism, out of your own mouth) because God "raised it up," and that, therefore, being a Noachide is insufficient, as it denies the truth of Christ, then one can be excused when dismissing the rest of your labored sophistry about Catholic (and other "liturgicals") gratuitous dismissal of the Old Testament. Mind you, I do not think that God "raised up" Protestantism, but the fact that you just said He did should, if you really believe it, give you some pause about remaining a Noachide who, by definition, refuses to believe that Christ is God. Protestantism, in the classical sense, certainly acknowledges the divinity of Christ. Therefore, if you believe it is "raised up" by God, why don't you acknowledge Christ as classical Protestantism would? If you are merely using this statement of yours, quoted above, as some sort of rhetorical device, one can be excused if one thinks that most of the rest of your complaints are similarly rhetorical, and that you simply show up here to be "difficult" to Catholics in particular and other Christians in general.
Most of your observations about the alleged disrespect Catholics show to the Old Testament are utter nonsense. They have almost no warrant from official sources (and, what little "evidence" you can glean from those sources is somewhat out of context) and speak, in my opinion, at least, of a bad time you might have had with various individual Catholics of your past acquaintance. Your obsession with this theme, in my opinion, is nothing more than a public flailing out at those individuals who misinterpreted their own Faith to you, and you hold Catholicism collectively responsible for them. That they did what they did is regrettable, but you seem intelligent enough otherwise to know that even a large number of individuals within a religious body might speak outside of their group's official position, while the group itself maintains a quite different "official" take on things. These days, I imagine you are more closely allied with the Jews, yet you don't seem to mind that, within Judaism, there is a vast range of adherence to both the concept of divine inspiration for the Torah and the actual living out of its precepts. Why, then, don't you rail against Judaism as you do against Catholicism and "liturgical" Christianity? The range of opinion within Judaism bespeaks of their being even more "hypocritical" about the Torah than Christianity, since it devolves from their only Testament!
In any event, why should you care what we Christians think about the Torah? To you, we are all "idolators," no? You said so yourself, when you referred to Christ as a "false gxd." As "idolators," our opinions on this or any subject should have no more bearing on your time and energy than the opinions of Hindus, yet I don't see you castigating them or any other pantheistic/pagan religion. Why is that?
I don't buy your explanation about the asterisk in "Christ," either. It is a slap at Him, as far as I'm concerned. Either that, or it's some sort of scrupulosity. I'm certainly no Buddhist, yet I don't have any real or imagined problems writing the word as shown above, and feel no compulsion to write it as "B*ddhist." If I did, I would be surprised if Buddhists didn't take it as a deliberate affront to their beliefs, regardless of the sophistical spin I might try to put on it.
From the Christian POV, the Law was put in place for a people set apart by God as the race that would bring forth the Messiah. They needed peculiar practices to confirm them in their own minds as a "people set apart," and as a form of discipline for them to maintain their separateness until, in the fullness of His time, God sent the Messiah into the world from their midst. Once the Messiah manifested Himself to the world through His chosen people, and ratified the mission of his disciples to spread His teachings and salvation into the Gentile world, the mission of the Jews in this regard was fulfilled. The Law was replaced by grace, and the separateness of the Jews was no longer necessary to His purpose. Therefore, the emblems of the law, which set His chosen race apart, were not at all needed by the Gentiles, and the Law was abrogated. it's just that simple. It is not the case at all that Catholics and other Christians "deny" that the Law as written is authentically the Word of God, it is just the realization that it doesn't apply to them, and that its purpose was accomplished and no longer needed.
G-d raised up Protestantism not because it is "the true religion" but merely as a case of middah keneged middah (measure for measure). It is no coincidence that Protestant charges against Catholicism are identical to the charges Catholicism had always made against Judaism ("chr*stless works religion") and that Catholicism's responses are identical to those made by Judaism ("our law is beautiful, we were here first, we were founded by G-d").
It is obvious that the Catholics on this board are simply having a very difficult time understanding the point I have been trying to make because it is so foreign to you.
If there is still a "law" in effect, then there was no need to do away with Torah/Noachide law and no new religion was necessary. If a new religion was necessary, it would have to be an antinomian (or at least post-nomian) one in order to have an excuse to replace the religion already in existence.
I will continue to try to help you understand the point I am making, but I can tell it is going to be next to impossible for you. Perhaps only a Catholic who used to be a Protestant can understand.