Scriptural Truth Found in Ancient Texts?

"So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:22-23 NASB)

 While camping one year, I met a believer who had some very unorthodox views.  He said he was somewhat like a church movement trying to get away from "organized religion" and back to early church roots.  It sounded interesting until two topics popped up chained together.  First he was against tithing saying it was a thing created by large churches to get more money.  Second, he based this view on his rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures as valid for Christians.  He totally missed the irony, even when I tried to explain it to him.

How can any Christ-following movement claim to be anywhere near the mindset of the early church and yet reject the very Scriptures they used in worship?  While this person, and others in such a movement may be an extreme example, there are others who are functionally in the same boat.  I have heard all sorts of excuses for such a practice: We're under "grace" not "law", The Old Testament was superseded by the New, Jesus said to reject it when He taught on "wine skins", and on and on.  HOG WASH!

Rather than debate these ridiculous excuses or give them any further thought time, let me ask the following:

1. When Jesus is tempted, where does He get His responses to Satan?  Where are those references found?
2. When Jesus corrects the Pharisees and religious leaders, what does He quote to them? Where are those references found?
3. On the road to Emmaus in Luke 24, what did Jesus use to support His statement that what happened was supposed to happen?  Where did He get those references?
4. How can Paul claim that he follows the law of the Jews in his repeated self-defense in Acts 22-26 if he has rejected the Hebrew Scriptures?
5. Why would he claim in Acts 26:22-23 that the core of his good news is "...nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place..." if he has rejected the Hebrew Scriptures?
6. What was being read in the Early Church gatherings in Troas since we don't have a "letter" from Paul or anyone else to them?  One isn't even mentioned, so what were they reading?  The ink was drying on the other letters we do have, so what did everyone else read?
7. How can Jesus claim that He did not come to abolish the law, that not least stroke would disappear until all is completed, if He didn't want His followers reading those Scriptures?  Unless I suppose that those in these reject movements believe they are completed, which would fit their arrogance.

The only conclusion I can reach is that anyone claiming to follow Jesus yet rejecting, functionally or openly, the very Scriptures He used Himself are not even reading the Scriptures they claim as valid.  This is a rant, perhaps a "straw man" argument, and I am clearly emotionally hot about this topic.  I admit it, confess it, but I'm not apologetic.  A view of God that does not incorporate both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures together is not only wrong, but dangerous.  That's not an opinion, it cannot be done and my Master be honored, be worshiped, or be obeyed.  There are sixty-six books, no more, no less, or someone else is being worshiped.