The Book of Hebrews

[Splayd]

Just very quickly -

It's interesting to note that much of the discussion in Acts 15 could have happened independant of Christianity. I would imagine that many parallel discussions have taken place solely within Judaism.

The Wikipedia entry for "Halakha" maintains:

Judaism has always held that gentiles are obliged only to follow the seven Noahide Laws; these are laws that the Oral Law derives from the covenant God made with Noah after the flood, which apply to all descendants of Noah (all living people). The Noahide laws are derived in the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 57a), and are listed here:

1. Murder is forbidden.
2. Theft is forbidden.
3. Sexual immorality is forbidden.
4. Eating flesh cut from a still-living animal is forbidden.
5. Belief in and worship or prayer to "idols" is forbidden.
6. Blaspheming against God is forbidden.
7. Society must establish a fair system of legal justice to administer these laws honestly.

There are two things I find interesting about this Jewish belief as it pertains to the topic:
1)The incredible similarity between the Jewish assessment of what's required of Gentiles and the conclusion of the council in Acts 15.
2) The fact that these requirements are (and are said to have always been) a matter of "Oral Law".

Just one more post to come before I tie it all together in Acts 15.

Peace

 

[Loveaboveall]

No we are not required to abstain from those things (except sexual immorality, of course). The Gentiles were asked to do so to keep from offending the Jewish christians. This was the crux of the problem in Acts 15. This interpretation fits perfectly with what Paul says in


Mar 7:18-23
(18) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him;
(19) because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.
(20) And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.
(21) For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
(22) covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness:
(23) all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man.

What version are you using? I don't believe that the version you use translates with the original intent of what Jesus said. Here is the KJV which I fall back on when any discrepancies pop up (the textus receptus is IMO is much better then the flawed Catholic manuscripts)

Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

To begin with the word "meats" is better translated --food--. Anything that is taken in for food. Is Jesus saying that anything we put in our mouth does not defile or harm us? I don't think that was His point. Note earlier that Jesus was speaking out against the pharisees legalism (wrong attitude for keeping the law) and the commandments that were created out of this legalism. In essence they created laws to keep the people from breaking the original laws. They jumped on Jesus for his disciples not washing their hands before eating. Then he pointed out their legalistic laws of diverse washings of plates and utensils. And then He points out their utter hypocrisy by the law they created that did not harmonize with the law of adultery that was given by God. This was the reasoning for what Jesus said. Now to get to His actual words. He first responded to the "unlawful" tradition of divorce that they adhered to and then moved on to say this...


Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

Jesus is, IMO, speaking not in a literal sense. If so then he would have been speaking of the drought that comes out after eating. He is speaking directly to the heart of the pharisees problem... their hearts. What truly defiles is sin. The pharisees tried to pin down Jesus by pointing out "fault" in not keeping "bad" tradition. Jesus was speaking to their heart when pointing out what is most important. It matters not what you do if you heart is not devoted to God, this is what truly defiles a person.

And this is how he explained it to His disciples. Speaking of the "heart"... He said it doesn't matter what you eat because it will not defile your heart. It matters what comes out of you... what you speak the works you do because sin always comes from a selfish heart. A selfless heart will not sin. I believe that Matthew explains this well...

matt 15:17-20 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Jesus was referring the whole time to the pharisees manmade rule of ceremonial washing of hands to cleanse them from any defilement that may have come to them from touching a gentile. Jesus says this does not defile a man, but what comes from the heart does.

Rom 14:14-20
(14) I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
(15) For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.
(16) Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
(17) for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
(18) For he that herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing to God, and approved of men.
(19) So then let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another.
(20) Overthrow not for meat's sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean; howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

IMO, you have a bit of a context issue that must be resolved. We can agree to disagree, but let me explain.

The big issue that you will find through a lot of the letter to the Romans is... Judging. You had Jewish converts and Pagan/Gentile converts. They came from different backgrounds and thus viewed many things differently. One issue was with eating food offered to Idols. The Jewish convert had no issue with this as they had always served the "True" God and understood that the idols were just that, images of wood, stone, gold, etc. they had no power. The Gentile/heathen coverts, on the other hand, had converted from this idol worship and would logically not think it appropriate to eat anything that had been offered to what they used to worship. It would be kind of like an alcholic going into a bar and ordering water.

So, we see Paul in vs 14-20 explaining to both parties that they should not judge what the other does, but to do according to what they feel is right. AND to not do anything to be a stumblingblock(this, I believe, was said to the Jews) against the new converts who were weaker in the faith.

If we compare the language Paul uses in Romans 14 with that used in 1 cor 8 we will find that they match pretty well. And Paul is clear in 1 corinthians that the "meat" that some considered unclean was that offered to idols.

Does Paul intend to say that you can eat whatever you want? I don't believe so.

And this is the reason I asked question 4:

The commands regarding eating meat offered to idols seems almost in complete contradiction to what Paul says in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8. Is it okay or is it not? And why does Paul say that those who believe it is not are "weak" in the faith?


Why would Paul agree in one place to command the gentiles to not eat meat offered to idols and then in another call those who think it wrong to eat meat offered to idols weak in the faith. Just something to ponder as we work through Acts 15

Another question for you two: Are we under this law from the Old Testament today?

Lev 15:19-23
(19) And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
(20) And everything that she lieth upon in her impurity shall be unclean: everything also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
(21) And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
(22) And whosoever toucheth anything that she sitteth upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
(23) And if it be on the bed, or on anything whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.

One must ask the question: Why was this civil law commanded? IMO, because women did not have feminine napkins back then and blood as a "rule" is unclean as we know today. The biggest risk for any healthcare practitioner is "dirty" blood. It poses the biggest risk of disease transmission. In the days when the blood would get all over everything the women was considered unclean and anything that she touched would be unclean, simple rule of disease transmission. Most married men will tell you that a women's "issue" can last from 5-7 days. Rarely would this last past seven days unless she was abnormal.

Today, Women can be sanitary with modern advances in cleanliness. What they lay on and touch, most of the time, does not become polluted with her blood. Thus their would be no need to consider her unclean unless she decided she would not use her "napkins" and get blood everywhere. If this happened I believe you would see most people follow this law.

 

[JDIBe]

What version are you using? I don't believe that the version you use translates with the original intent of what Jesus said. Here is the KJV which I fall back on when any discrepancies pop up (the textus receptus is IMO is much better then the flawed Catholic manuscripts)

Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

The version I am using is the American Standard Version. The NIV reads very similar. I had not read the KJV. I do see a difference in the KJV, but I still think the point is the same.

Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

And this is how he explained it to His disciples. Speaking of the "heart"... He said it doesn't matter what you eat because it will not defile your heart. It matters what comes out of you... what you speak the works you do because sin always comes from a selfish heart. A selfless heart will not sin. I believe that Matthew explains this well...

Amen. I think your explanation goes beyond just simple washing of hands as well, though.

IMO, you have a bit of a context issue that must be resolved. We can agree to disagree, but let me explain.

The big issue that you will find through a lot of the letter to the Romans is... Judging. You had Jewish converts and Pagan/Gentile converts. They came from different backgrounds and thus viewed many things differently. One issue was with eating food offered to Idols. The Jewish convert had no issue with this as they had always served the "True" God and understood that the idols were just that, images of wood, stone, gold, etc. they had no power. The Gentile/heathen coverts, on the other hand, had converted from this idol worship and would logically not think it appropriate to eat anything that had been offered to what they used to worship. It would be kind of like an alcholic going into a bar and ordering water.

So, we see Paul in vs 14-20 explaining to both parties that they should not judge what the other does, but to do according to what they feel is right. AND to not do anything to be a stumblingblock(this, I believe, was said to the Jews) against the new converts who were weaker in the faith.

If we compare the language Paul uses in Romans 14 with that used in 1 cor 8 we will find that they match pretty well. And Paul is clear in 1 corinthians that the "meat" that some considered unclean was that offered to idols.

Does Paul intend to say that you can eat whatever you want? I don't believe so.

Well, my problem here is I don't see "idol meat is clean". I see "all things indeed are clean" and "nothing in of itself is unclean". The general principle may apply in this particular situation, but I have a hard time understanding how one can contexualize the statements to mean the exact opposite thing.

And this is the reason I asked question 4:

The commands regarding eating meat offered to idols seems almost in complete contradiction to what Paul says in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8. Is it okay or is it not? And why does Paul say that those who believe it is not are "weak" in the faith?

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Who is the weak one? I don't see how this is supporting your argument.

Why would Paul agree in one place to command the gentiles to not eat meat offered to idols and then in another call those who think it wrong to eat meat offered to idols weak in the faith. Just something to ponder as we work through Acts 15

Because it is a matter of conscience, not food anymore. I do agree with you that these passages are key to understanding Acts 15.

One must ask the question: Why was this civil law commanded? IMO, because women did not have feminine napkins back then and blood as a "rule" is unclean as we know today. The biggest risk for any healthcare practitioner is "dirty" blood. It poses the biggest risk of disease transmission. In the days when the blood would get all over everything the women was considered unclean and anything that she touched would be unclean, simple rule of disease transmission. Most married men will tell you that a women's "issue" can last from 5-7 days. Rarely would this last past seven days unless she was abnormal.

Today, Women can be sanitary with modern advances in cleanliness. What they lay on and touch, most of the time, does not become polluted with her blood. Thus their would be no need to consider her unclean unless she decided she would not use her "napkins" and get blood everywhere. If this happened I believe you would see most people follow this law.

Ok. Then let me ask you this. With today's modern advances in cleanliness, it is simple to cook meats like pork and not get sick. (A pork chop done right is safer than raw hamburger...)

Does this lift the civil dietary restriction of such meats? Does God's Law and definition of "unclean" change with scientific advances? (Remember, the woman herself is "unclean" too.)

 

[JDIBe]

Here's something else that's interesting, and maybe a little more confortable to talk about.....

Deut. 22:11
KJV: Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.
ASV: Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together.

Is my 50-50 cotton/poly t-shirt forbidden? Are we under this law today? Why or why not?

 

[Splayd]

Sorry I haven't had time to come back to this yet. I'll try to find some time to make another post today. Until then:

Here's something else that's interesting, and maybe a little more confortable to talk about.....

Deut. 22:11
KJV: Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.
ASV: Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together.

Is my 50-50 cotton/poly t-shirt forbidden? Are we under this law today? Why or why not?

Is it forbidden? No. Are we under that law? No. Why not? We're not under law.

Here's a quick question for you:
Were gentiles under law before Christ? ie: Was there a standard by which they were judged? If not - why'd they require Christ? If so - what standard?

Peace

 

[JDIBe]

Sorry I haven't had time to come back to this yet. I'll try to find some time to make another post today. Until then:Is it forbidden? No. Are we under that law? No. Why not? We're not under law.

Here's a quick question for you:
Were gentiles under law before Christ? ie: Was there a standard by which they were judged? If not - why'd they require Christ? If so - what standard?

Peace

Yes, Yes, Sin, Moral Law.

Rom 2:12-15
(12) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
(13) for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
(14) (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
(15) in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);


How do we know this is true? They have a conscience. Now the conscience is NOT the law itself. It is only a witness that it is there. It can be "seared". (Yet another reason to stay on the "straight and narrow". One's ability to quickly determine what is wrong is diminished) It originated at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Consider this:

Matt. 7:12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.


~1280 - 650 BC "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Moses, Tanakh, new JPS translation, Leviticus (Leviticus 19:18), Judaism.
~700 BC "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism.
~500 BC "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.
~500 BC "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." Analects of Confucius 15:24, Confucianism
~500 BC "Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." - Acarangasutra 5.101-2, Jainism.
~150 BC "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." - Mahabharata 5:1517, Hinduism.
~100 AC "What you feel painful to yourself, do not do to others." - Tiruvalluvar, Tirukkural 316.
"We should bear ourselves toward others as we would desire they should bear themselves toward us." (Aristotle)
"May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Plato)
"What stirs your anger when done to you by others, that do not do to others." (Socrates)

Now I ask you, why are all of these religions in agreement with each other? Humanists would tell you that Christianity simply "borrowed" things from other religions or that "Evolution" somehow determined that rule best encouraged the chances to create many long-lived offspring. But the Christian knows better. He knows that some things are just inherently "right". He knows that all good comes from God. It would be surprising if it WERE completely different from age to age and continent to continent. This is the MORAL LAW.

Another (Biblical) example... Cain. How did Cain know murder was wrong? "Thou shall not murder" had not been given at Sinai yet. It is not in any of the first 3 chapters of Genesis. So how did he know?

Now, the next question that is probably popping into your head right now is, "Well, if all religions and philosophers speak of good, why not just follow them?"

The Christian believes the answer is simple and two-fold. The first is the very essence of the Gospel.

1. No other religion provides a way back to God. Period. "No man cometh to the Father but by Me." But do I need saving? Yes! "There is none righteous. No not one." If you are a Jew. You are lost. If you are a Gentile. You are lost. Simple as that.
2. Only Christianity provides the correct and complete information as to what your purpose is in the universe, both here and after death. Only Christianity provides complete and accurate information from the Great Author Himself as to what is "good" and how to achieve this purpose, unfiltered by man's own selfish desires and imperfections.

So how do we all escape this situation? I think you all know the rest of the story....

 

[JDIBe]

Sorry I haven't had time to come back to this yet. I'll try to find some time to make another post today. Until then:Is it forbidden? No. Are we under that law? No. Why not? We're not under law.

Ok, let me rephrase..... (to anyone here) If anyone wore a "garment of divers sorts" back then (Jew or Gentile) would it be a sin?

If anyone TODAY wore a "garment of divers sorts" would it be a sin? (I'm not saying a forgiven one. I'm saying a sin.)

Is this the same question to you as in the above post, or is there a distinction?

 

[Loveaboveall]

Ok, let me rephrase..... (to anyone here) If anyone wore a "garment of divers sorts" back then (Jew or Gentile) would it be a sin?

If anyone TODAY wore a "garment of divers sorts" would it be a sin? (I'm not saying a forgiven one. I'm saying a sin.)

Is this the same question to you as in the above post, or is there a distinction?

Sorry, I have not had much time either the past couple weeks. Let me ask you a quick question and will try to answer more a little later.

1 cor 11:4-6 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Is it a sin for women to pray with their heads uncovered? more...

1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Is it okay for women to wear jewelry today? How do we know what modest is and would the "modest" today have been modest 50 yrs ago? What about hair braided with gold, or in todays terms--"highlights"? Is it okay to wear these things even though Paul specifically tells us not to? And is this a law that if broken is a sin?

 

[Loveaboveall]

Now, the next question that is probably popping into your head right now is, "Well, if all religions and philosophers speak of good, why not just follow them?"

The Christian believes the answer is simple and two-fold. The first is the very essence of the Gospel.

1. No other religion provides a way back to God. Period. "No man cometh to the Father but by Me." But do I need saving? Yes! "There is none righteous. No not one." If you are a Jew. You are lost. If you are a Gentile. You are lost. Simple as that.
2. Only Christianity provides the correct and complete information as to what your purpose is in the universe, both here and after death. Only Christianity provides complete and accurate information from the Great Author Himself as to what is "good" and how to achieve this purpose, unfiltered by man's own selfish desires and imperfections.

So how do we all escape this situation? I think you all know the rest of the story....

I am not sure I agree with you on this point. Most every religion provides a way of redemption in some form. Some may believe in reincarnation until you get things right, and karma, the more good you do the closer you get to... whatever they think God is. Many will even tell you that you are a god and that you really don't need to "return" to god you just have to find god inside you. The points you make could be very easily countered by a person saying, no, my way is the correct way. What makes your God any better than my God? Who says I am lost? Who says I need a savior? Who says your information is complete and accurate?

My point with all of this is that there is something far greater that christians have in their "God" that no other religion has..... A CREATOR... This is the one point that sets us apart from all other religions of the world and the commands that we follow based on what God tells us. He is to be obeyed because He created us, He has the authority to command things of us because He is greater than us, just as the creation is never greater then the creator. That is what sets apart the "laws" or commands of the christian from all the other belief systems out there. They don't have a god with that kind of authority!

 

[JDIBe]

I am not sure I agree with you on this point. Most every religion provides a way of redemption in some form. Some may believe in reincarnation until you get things right, and karma, the more good you do the closer you get to... whatever they think God is. Many will even tell you that you are a god and that you really don't need to "return" to god you just have to find god inside you. The points you make could be very easily countered by a person saying, no, my way is the correct way. What makes your God any better than my God? Who says I am lost? Who says I need a savior? Who says your information is complete and accurate?

My point with all of this is that there is something far greater that christians have in their "God" that no other religion has..... A CREATOR... This is the one point that sets us apart from all other religions of the world and the commands that we follow based on what God tells us. He is to be obeyed because He created us, He has the authority to command things of us because He is greater than us, just as the creation is never greater then the creator. That is what sets apart the "laws" or commands of the christian from all the other belief systems out there. They don't have a god with that kind of authority!

Well first of all, I preface the statements with "The Christian believes...."

As to point number one, many people will tell you many different things. Not all of it is true. If you have gotten to the point that you believe there is a God and the Bible is His Word, you must accept point one.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I believe my second point addresses everything you say in your second paragraph.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Yes, Yes, Sin, Moral Law.

Rom 2:12-15
(12) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
(13) for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
(14) (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
(15) in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

Just to clarify so I do not assume what you mean re: the "moral law". Is this the same law that Paul speaks of in Romans 3:20?

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin."

I still do not have a good grasp of what you actually believe is the "moral law".

 

[JDIBe]

Because of verse 9, I think it refers to both the Moral Law for the Gentiles and the Mosaic Law for the Jews. Kind of I suppose, "Law" in general.

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin;


Paul then goes on to make a summation of his case in general terms.

Think of it this way. Think of something that seems inherently wrong, like murder or stealing. Something that "everybody knows" is wrong whether they go to church or not. That is probably Moral Law.

Think of something that doesn't seem inherently wrong. Something like garments of "mingled stuff" and IMO, "clean vs. unclean animals". (I know you disagree with me on this point.) This probably is not Moral Law.

I sometimes feel people think that when I say the "Old Law" is passed, they think I mean that everything after that must be diametrically opposed to what was before, as if "murder is now ok". Murder is still murder because it is inherently wrong, regardless of the time you live in. It is addressed in both Covenants. Some things (such as sacrifices) are not needed anymore. (I don't think it was a coincidence that God allowed the Temple to be destroyed in 70 AD...) Some things are shadows of things to come which are more perfect. These things pass away because something better is now here.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Think of it this way. Think of something that seems inherently wrong, like murder or stealing. Something that "everybody knows" is wrong whether they go to church or not. That is probably Moral Law...

Think of something that doesn't seem inherently wrong. Something like garments of "mingled stuff" and IMO, "clean vs. unclean animals". (I know you disagree with me on this point.) This probably is not Moral Law...

Some things are shadows of things to come which are more perfect. These things pass away because something better is now here.

If you believe this moral law to be what is inherently right and wrong, would you agree that this "law" is in harmony with the character of God and does not change?

If so, then I am wondering why you choose to believe(at least I assume you do as many in the CofC believe) that the whole law, or as many refer to it, the old testament, was changed with the new covenant?

I believe, without realizing it, that you have broken up the law into 2 separate entities, which I believe is how they were viewed by both the Jews and the apostles and early church. The moral law, 10 commandments, and the ceremonial law, all the stuff that may not be inherently wrong to us today.

When speaking of the law, if you combine these then it makes absolutely no sense. But, when you view them as separate, it makes perfect sense. In Hebrews 7:12 it speaks of a law needing CHANGE, " For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." This could not possibly be speaking of the moral law, because right and wrong cannot change can it? Righteousness is God, unrighteousness is the antithesis of God. It is impossible for God to change.

So, if we view Hebrews 7:12 as speaking of the ceremonial law, which contains the laws regarding who could be a priest, then it very much makes sense and is in harmony with the character of God. If we choose to lump the whole old testament, or even just the Torah into this than it changes much more than the author intended. As Hebrews continues into chapter 8 we see the parallels of the ceremonial system and how they were a shadow of the heavenly. As you said, these shadows passed away because they were realized in Christ. Was the moral law a shadow that was realized in Christ? I don't see how it could be?!

The law that is written on the hearts of God's people in the new covenant is the moral law, the law that does not change, the law that defines what is righteousness and what is sin. How can this be referred to as a "new law", this is what I don't understand. Jesus came and kept all of the moral law perfectly, this is how He could be our perfect sacrifice and be the realization of the "shadow" of the sin offering/lamb without blemish.

Did He do away with the moral law because He kept it perfectly? God forbid, He established it as being "holy, just, and good" as Paul puts it in Romans 7:12.

So, you see, it was the "Ceremonial law of shadows" that was nailed to the cross. There is no further need of sin offerings, or food/meat offerings, or drink offerings, or the keeping of feasts and days that all pointed to Jesus, of when He would come and what He would be for us. It may serve us well to commemorate these things as we can learn much from them about Jesus but we are not "required" to keep them.

However, we are to repent from sin and turn away from it, right? If this is so then we are "required" to keep the moral law aren't we? If not we would be commiting sin. How could this law have been nailed to the cross, how could there be a "new" law of the new covenant that defines what sin is? How could the definition of sin change?

The ceremonial law was put in place as a way for God's people to deal with their sin problem, of breaking God's moral law. When Jesus came and died, He replaced this system of shadows with His perfect sacrifice and He is now our High Priest. This means that we now do not have to deal with our sin problem with sin offerings and the such because we have a perfect sacrifice in Jesus. The catch is that we DO hava a sin problem which means there is still the same law that God's people of old broke, we break today. However, under the new covenant we have a much better way of dealing with this sin problem, we have Jesus! But, the definition of sin never changed just the way that God has chosen for us to get rid of it!

Am I making any sense?

One last point, along with the Moral law and the ceremonial law, Moses dedicates a large portion of deutoronomy to "civil laws". These were laws that were specific to that time period that taught the people how to rightly keep the moral law in their culture. This is what the gathering in Acts 15 did also. They interpreted the moral law to the culture of the day. And since we are not in the culture of the COI many things do not apply, however, there may be some things that can transcend culture that we need to study. But mostly, we should study them to understand how to rightly apply the moral law to us today. This in essence is what Jesus did on the SOTM. And what much of the new testament does. It does not change the moral law, it just interprets it in light of the day. That is why it matters not if a woman covers her head in prayer, and it is not shameful for a man to have long hair. These things were cultural and were given as instruction on how to live as a christian and not take the name of the Lord in vain.