Submitting Torah Observance To New Covenant Principles

[TanteBelle]

I'd agree that belief is simple, even a child can become a believer in Elohim (God) and Yeshua(Jesus) whatever terminology one uses, but Bible is highly complicated, difficult and hard to understand. and everybody comes to reading it with his own preset mentality and mindset, that's , in part, the reason why we have miriads of denominations and interpretations of the same text.

I strongly disagree that bible is straightforward, black and white and easy to get. Its not! As the poster above you mentioned, it also depends on the period in history one lives in. Some of the things advocated in Torah and the rest of Bible are plainly illegal and downright immoral in today's society.

You are right. Some things in the Bible are straightforward and there are many other parts that are not. No matter how frustrated I was at the time, I should have thought that post through more carfully before posting it. My apologies to all.

 

[David Ben Yosef]

You are right. Some things in the Bible are straightforward and there are many other parts that are not. No matter how frustrated I was at the time, I should have thought that post through more carfully before posting it. My apologies to all.

Wow, that took some courage to say. How refreshing! You continue to impress me, TanteBelle. I'll discuss Scripture with you any day.

 

[chetermezacha]

Wow, that took some courage to say. How refreshing! You continue to impress me, TanteBelle. I'll discuss Scripture with you any day.

I second this indeed

 

[SGM4HIM]

.what Torah was this if it was not the Torah?



32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers


...one that is better than the original Torah? how many torahs do you think there are?

I guess it depends on your definition of Torah. The bible discusses different instructions or torah for different people in different environments and Different covenants. Different sacrifices and methods from the tabernacle wilderness to the first temple, to the 2nd and different priesthoods etc.

This is not to say- many instructions involving our relationship with Hashem and humanity are identical throughout the ages.

The NT scriptures are clear that the new gentile believers in Yeshua were not required to adopt all practices of their fellow Jewish believers.

 

[Desert Rose]

You are right. Some things in the Bible are straightforward and there are many other parts that are not. No matter how frustrated I was at the time, I should have thought that post through more carfully before posting it. My apologies to all.

oh dear, thats very nice and humble of you, but what for do you apologize? If i were to apologize for every error i make here, i'd need to do it trice a day at least we all are here to learn, - i am posting for that purpose for sure. If the iron stops sharpening iron, we might just close down the shop

 

[TanteBelle]

Wow, that took some courage to say. How refreshing! You continue to impress me, TanteBelle. I'll discuss Scripture with you any day.

Abba is still trying to teach me the meaning of humility! LOL!

I guess it depends on your definition of Torah. The bible discusses different instructions or torah for different people in different environments and Different covenants. Different sacrifices and methods from the tabernacle wilderness to the first temple, to the 2nd and different priesthoods etc.

This is not to say- many instructions involving our relationship with Hashem and humanity are identical throughout the ages.

The NT scriptures are clear that the new gentile believers in Yeshua were not required to adopt all practices of their fellow Jewish believers.

That brings us back to the statement then that God is in fact a respector of persons.? If the Jewish believers were preaching Jewish traditions, then yes, no believer, Jew or Gentile was to practice those things that were the 'teachings for commandments the doctrines of men', as Yeshua Himself said. But Yeshua admonished the teachings of the Pharisees by saying,

Matthew 23:2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

 

[TanteBelle]

oh dear, thats very nice and humble of you, but what for do you apologize? If i were to apologize for every error i make here, i'd need to do it trice a day at least we all are here to learn, - i am posting for that purpose for sure. If the iron stops sharpening iron, we might just close down the shop

Well, I could say for being an utter drongo, but to be honest, when I went back and read it, it came across as nothing less than self-righteous. As if I had more understanding of scripture than you folks who are far above my years! And God forbid that I should think so of myself! I've only been in the faith 5 years. I'm afraid, humility is not a trait that is in my human natue! LOL! Oh crikey!

 

[ContraMundum]

So explain your idea of the New Covenant and i will explain what Jeremiah was talking about, after all he said the New Covenant was to put the Torah in the heart...what Torah was this if it was not the Torah?

Jeremiah 31

I will make a new covenant (New meaning another)
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32 It will not be like the covenant (It will be different)
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to [d] them, [e] "
declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.

But you are suggesting this is a different Torah? one that is better than the original Torah? how many torahs do you think there are?

Yes, there is more than one Covenant. The New one is superior- the NT says so. The Old one was a tutor, and could not achieve the same things. I really don't have the time to go over this yet again. Search the archives.

Yes, there is also something the NT calls the "Law of Christ" (Or Torah of Moschiach if you insist) and it is not the same as the Mosaic Torah on every point. So, yes, there is a Torah for all mankind and one for the Jews but they have the same source. You remember this from Yeshiva. Again, search the archives, because I don't have the time and really can't justify spending too much more on a flogged to death topic.

 

[ContraMundum]

Well, I could say for being an utter drongo, but to be honest, when I went back and read it, it came across as nothing less than self-righteous. As if I had more understanding of scripture than you folks who are far above my years! And God forbid that I should think so of myself! I've only been in the faith 5 years. I'm afraid, humility is not a trait that is in my human natue! LOL! Oh crikey!

I knew you would say something like this. Having watched you for all this time I knew you had a lot of integrity and courage. Your family must be very proud of you. I would be.

 

[ContraMundum]

I guess it depends on your definition of Torah. The bible discusses different instructions or torah for different people in different environments and Different covenants. Different sacrifices and methods from the tabernacle wilderness to the first temple, to the 2nd and different priesthoods etc.

This is not to say- many instructions involving our relationship with Hashem and humanity are identical throughout the ages.

The NT scriptures are clear that the new gentile believers in Yeshua were not required to adopt all practices of their fellow Jewish believers.

Again, well put. I get exasperated with all of this.....you do so much better. How can I learn patience from you my brother?

 

[chetermezacha]

It says 'I will make a new covenant' it does not say 'I will make a new Torah'. Read the scripture its plan and straight forward. A covenant is a binding agreement...Torah is a way of life they are completely different things. Many covenants throughout the generations but only one Torah. No this is not one Torah for different people, G-d does not have double standards because when someone is 'grafted into the olive tree of Israel they are to keep the ways of Israel...as the disciple said that Moshe is taught in every synagogue every shabbat, granted they didnt know the shabbat would be changed for the day of Horus but never-the-less this was their ruling.

And the law of Christ, as you call it, was nothing new as he himself said that he came to bring back the sinners, so he ate at the table of the sinner not the table of the righteous. Similarly the 'gospel' was nothing new and is the first thing taught in the book of Genesis (and this is for you to find as I will not expose such things to those not seeking). No where does it say that he came to destroy or change the Torah, no where...this assumption developed only around AD 300 at the Gentile Councils under Constantine and developed because of a desire to make a new religion that could be followed while continuing to persecute Jews. Even the Leviticus priesthood was not abolished and to prove this point Paul went numerous times to the Temple to make offering, even when Yeshua personally said to someone, you are healed and your sins are forgiven, he sent them to the Temple that they could fulfill all of Torah, something the unclean could not do.

I would suggest, Contra, if you do not have the time to explain yourself then do not bother to post...I could easily say the same; you are wrong...go study but this isnt good enough and is something a teenager would say. People take the time to put forward their argument to you, such as Tishri, and you ignore all that is written because you so desperately hold fast to a false religion. For some reason you think that Yeshua came to die for the sins of Torah, because it was wrong and corruptible, maybe you think he even came to die for the sins of G-d? if you think the so called 'old covenant' was so wrong? the only thing wrong with the old covenant was people saying it should not be followed, which is something affiliated to the new covenant also.

Do not be fooled by those who say the ways of G-d change, from generation to generation as he is eternal and his way is eternal, not like the changing nations and the changing Church that begs for acceptance in each generation, needy of layman to continue what every previous dominating kingdom wanted to do, dominate the world...through force, through conversion, through peace or economics.

 

[ContraMundum]

It says 'I will make a new covenant' it does not say 'I will make a new Torah'. Read the scripture its plan and straight forward. A covenant is a binding agreement...Torah is a way of life they are completely different things. Many covenants throughout the generations but only one Torah.

Yes!

No this is not one Torah for different people, G-d does not have double standards because when someone is 'grafted into the olive tree of Israel they are to keep the ways of Israel...as the disciple said that Moshe is taught in every synagogue every shabbat, granted they didnt know the shabbat would be changed for the day of Horus but never-the-less this was their ruling.

I don't think that is right. A grafted in tree does not take on the DNA of the other. They remain and grow as one, but maintain their distinctives.

The NT teaches about One New Man. That's who we are. The Gentiles have no become the Jews, the Jews have not become the Gentiles. All are one new man.

And the law of Christ, as you call it, was nothing new as he himself said that he came to bring back the sinners, so he ate at the table of the sinner not the table of the righteous. Similarly the 'gospel' was nothing new and is the first thing taught in the book of Genesis (and this is for you to find as I will not expose such things to those not seeking).

Tell us something we don't already know before assuming we've never heard of the protoevangelium.

No where does it say that he came to destroy or change the Torah, no where..

He fulfilled the Torah. He said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

"Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι"

πληρῶσαι- (root πληρό&#969 is the same Greek word used to describe the "fulfilling" of prophecy. Fulfilling a prophecy does not destroy or change it, it brings it to its final place (even fill up, level to the full, complete etc is ok here too. But it seems you take it to mean re-establish or stablish something like that?)

.this assumption developed only around AD 300 at the Gentile Councils under Constantine and developed because of a desire to make a new religion that could be followed while continuing to persecute Jews.

This is plain not true. The Nicene Council settled a dispute over Christology. Jews weren't even discussed, as I recall (and having to do endless papers on the Councils at sem I think I have some confidence in this)

I suppose you believe in some conspiracy theory about this?

Even the Leviticus priesthood was not abolished and to prove this point Paul went numerous times to the Temple to make offering, even when Yeshua personally said to someone, you are healed and your sins are forgiven, he sent them to the Temple that they could fulfill all of Torah, something the unclean could not do.

The Levitical priesthood was still passing away during Paul's lifetime. It is now gone. This is spoken of in many places in the NT.

I would suggest, Contra, if you do not have the time to explain yourself then do not bother to post...I could easily say the same; you are wrong...go study but this isnt good enough and is something a teenager would say. People take the time to put forward their argument to you, such as Tishri, and you ignore all that is written because you so desperately hold fast to a false religion.

I've spent hours on this forum presenting my position, complete with scriptures for years before you popped along. Relax.

For some reason you think that Yeshua came to die for the sins of Torah, because it was wrong and corruptible, maybe you think he even came to die for the sins of G-d?

Now now...

if you think the so called 'old covenant' was so wrong? the only thing wrong with the old covenant was people saying it should not be followed, which is something affiliated to the new covenant also.

What on earth do you mean?

Do not be fooled by those who say the ways of G-d change, from generation to generation as he is eternal and his way is eternal, not like the changing nations and the changing Church that begs for acceptance in each generation, needy of layman to continue what every previous dominating kingdom wanted to do, dominate the world...through force, through conversion, through peace or economics.

Are you a Christian? What/which Covenant/s are you bound to?

 

[TanteBelle]

I knew you would say something like this. Having watched you for all this time I knew you had a lot of integrity and courage. Your family must be very proud of you. I would be.

And here I was thinking I was mysteriously unpredictable! LOL! Well, the Lord did once speak through the mouth of an ass and with a compliment like that one sir, you never know, He may just do so again! LOL!

He fulfilled the Torah. He said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

If the word fulfill means to do away with it, then I suppose the same would ring true for this ...

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

'For thus it becometh us to do away with all righteousness'???? If you fulfil your role as a husband (I have no idea if you are married, sir, sorry), does that mean that you do away with your role as a husband? Or does it mean that you do it completely?

πληρῶσαι- (root πληρό&#969 is the same Greek word used to describe the "fulfilling" of prophecy. Fulfilling a prophecy does not destroy or change it, it brings it to its final place (even fill up, level to the full, complete etc is ok here too. But it seems you take it to mean re-establish or stablish something like that?)

Now I'm boggled, to be honest sir. You seem to have just contradicted your previous argument. It wasn't do be done away with but that Yeshua came to fulfil what the prophets had said about Him. If the torah is done away with, I'm wondering what morality is left if all you read is the NT 'laws'. You'll be left with a DIY religion.

The Levitical priesthood was still passing away during Paul's lifetime. It is now gone. This is spoken of in many places in the NT.

I agree that it had been desecrated by those in the priesthood and that yes, Yeshua is the fulfillment of the Levitical covenant (sacrifices anyway).

Yes, there is more than one Covenant. The New one is superior- the NT says so. The Old one was a tutor, and could not achieve the same things. I really don't have the time to go over this yet again. Search the archives.

Is there a scripture verse that says that the new is superior to the old? I'm simply asking here.

For someone who first comes to faith, the torah still is our 'schoolmaster'. It's the difference between living by the letter of the torah and living by the spirit of the torah.

Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Yeshua Messiah might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Messiah, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

How could the old not give the same results as the new? If someone slaughtered a sheep as an atonement for his sins, God promises that he shall be forgiven. Abraham obeyed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

Deuteronomy 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He hath commanded us.

Genesis 26:5Because that Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the torah are just before God, but the doers of the torah shall be justified.

 

[TanteBelle]

I think I just accidentally deleted my subscription to this thread! Back on!

 

[Steve Petersen]

He fulfilled the Torah. He said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

"Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι"

πληρῶσαι- (root πληρό&#969 is the same Greek word used to describe the "fulfilling" of prophecy. Fulfilling a prophecy does not destroy or change it, it brings it to its final place (even fill up, level to the full, complete etc is ok here too. But it seems you take it to mean re-establish or stablish something like that?)

Hi Contra, how have you been lately?

Have you considered Tim Hegg's paper on the use of this word? Taking several Hebrew translations of this verse and following the NT Greek back into the LXX he suggests that 'fulfill' is more properly translated 'affirm or support.'

John Lightfoot notes in his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica that 'It was the opinion of the nation concerning Messias, the he would bring in a new law, but not at all to the prejudice or damage of Moses and the Prophets; but that he would advance the Mosaic law to the very highest pitch...'

 

[ContraMundum]

Hi Contra, how have you been lately?

Stressed. But good. Thanks for asking.

Have you considered Tim Hegg's paper on the use of this word? Taking several Hebrew translations of this verse and following the NT Greek back into the LXX he suggests that 'fulfill' is more properly translated 'affirm or support.'

John Lightfoot notes in his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica that 'It was the opinion of the nation concerning Messias, the he would bring in a new law, but not at all to the prejudice or damage of Moses and the Prophets; but that he would advance the Mosaic law to the very highest pitch...'

I read Hegg's paper and it was a bit of a catalyst in me coming down on the side of the debate against him. Arnold Fructenbaum has a much more solid case is his works on this topic, as well as pretty much everyone else not in Hegg's ever-decreasing camp.

I really think much loyalty to the text was shown Hegg's paper. As he too often does, he searches constantly for loopholes to prove his personal convictions. It's like he won't stop seeking until he finds a way to make it say what he wants it. I've noticed it in pretty much everything he writes.

In any case, exactly what Hegg is trying to prove has remained somewhat elusive to many of his readers. "Affirm" or "support" is still within an orthodox understanding, as the case against several Mosaic Covenant observances in the New Covenant is not established on this text anyway.

 

[ContraMundum]

If the word fulfill means to do away with it, then I suppose the same would ring true for this ...

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

'For thus it becometh us to do away with all righteousness'???? If you fulfil your role as a husband (I have no idea if you are married, sir, sorry), does that mean that you do away with your role as a husband? Or does it mean that you do it completely?

Context determines the meaning in theology. I'm not sure I see this particular reference as problematical to my understanding. Seems to fit just fine by me- but perhaps I have not made my point clear enough to the reader.

As for the husband analogy, you can take it two ways, although English is a different language. While you are alive, you are fulfilling the role of husband but hopefully when you die, you have fulfilled your role. We can both agree on the strength of this analogy that Jesus fulfilled all righteousness.

Now I'm boggled, to be honest sir. You seem to have just contradicted your previous argument. It wasn't do be done away with but that Yeshua came to fulfil what the prophets had said about Him. If the torah is done away with, I'm wondering what morality is left if all you read is the NT 'laws'. You'll be left with a DIY religion.

I don't think that's exactly right. Having read the Sermon on the Mount, the epistles and so much more in the NT I would say that the NT is clearly the highest moral standard on Earth. It's not easy to meet it's requirements. I believe this is what Paul was referring to as the Law of Christ and the Law of the Spirit of Life. It is also worthy of note that the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law are reaffirmed (and even made harder to keep in some instances) in NT. Clearly, God's moral laws were not abolished (as they cannot be, because they reflect His nature)

Is there a scripture verse that says that the new is superior to the old? I'm simply asking here.

There are many references to that. Heb 8:6-13 is a good one. Acts 13:39 Pretty much all of Galatians as well.

For someone who first comes to faith, the torah still is our 'schoolmaster'. It's the difference between living by the letter of the torah and living by the spirit of the torah.

I agree. Unless you know your sin through the Law you will never know your need of a Saviour through the Gospel.

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the torah are just before God, but the doers of the torah shall be justified.

I think it's a little misleading by some translators to insert the word "Torah" into an English Bible for the Greek word "nomos", which means Law. The word "Torah" has too many meanings, is imprecise and carries with it certain undertones that make people want to buy tefillin and eat matzah all day. Paul's use of the Greek word nomos is far more clever and sophisticated than that.

Think of if this way: if Paul is saying that only the doers of the 613 mitzvot will be justified, then he is contradicting himself when he tells the Galatians to reject circumcision. Likewise, the Torah commands us to kill animals to please God and kill people for picking up sticks on Saturday. Surely, you and I both know that these are part of the 613 Laws of the Torah. Obviously then, Paul is talking about a different law when he tells us which ones to keep, although the Torah is the foundation to those NT laws.

In the example you have given, I think he is building a case towards justification by faith (alone!) and not building a case for justification by faith + law. Paul teaches (as does James) that good works follow faith, as evidence if you will. The good works the authors of the NT (following after Jesus' teachings) cherish are never related to keeping the rituals or outward observances of the Torah, but always those works which do good to one's neighbour as love in action. Hence: the Law of Christ and the Law of the Spirit of Life is fulfilled in love.

 

[Desert Rose]

People take the time to put forward their argument to you, such as Tishri

i read their debate and came to conclusion they are not far apart at all
CM and Tishi- a girl whom i deeply respect for her sober view of religion- actually saying the same thing about the important matters.

Bells and whistles of religious practices are very secondary....

Do not be fooled by those who say the ways of G-d change, from generation to generation as he is eternal and his way is eternal,

sure, God is eternal. I dont think anybody here would argue with me on that one.
But some things in Written Torah are obsolete, as i mentioned before
You are not obeying them, Jews ( and not the Messianic ones - i dont mean yehudim meshahim here, but Jews as in Jews) are not obeying them .Not because they cant , or No Temple excuse - but because those laws are OBSOLETE now. Obeying them would be Illegal. Immoral. Wrong.

So Gods ways and orders for what we should do indeed changed in some areas. Torah as a list of things we can or should obey has changed.

 

[chetermezacha]

I disagree with you Desert Rose because G-d and everything associated with him is eternal, you cannot touch the tree of life without being so. This is not to say the Torah, as we know it, is the eternal Torah as it is not because Moses put his own influence into it when writing it.

This notion of change was what happened in Babylon (some didnt even want to return to Jerusalem, in fact many of the priest families did not return) and under the Greek Empire (also the Greco-Roman too) that people would see things as outdated or old fashioned and would change those things. This was what Yeshua had to deal with when he visited us. He had to deal with the human traditions which had been made up, to make the Torah more 'contemporary'.

As the nations get more and more into a torah'less mode we see more transgression of Torah. homosexuality is one of the more contemporary issues. Sure you can bring up the extreme situations, as CM has done, like the stoning of one who picks rods up on the Shabbat, but isnt this the same challenge, and for the same reason, they put to Yeshua, saying, she was found to be adulterous so why dont you stone her? In fact during that time this commandment was never enforced but adultery was still seen as sin by Yeshua (so they basically were saying if you think its really a sin then go ahead and follow Torah as you say you do)...

You have to understand that even though Sanhedrin judgments might be more serve or more lenient at times it does not change the fact that to transgress Torah is a sin:for example Moses permitted divorce but this was his leniency and wasnt part of the original Torah, never the less, adultery was still considered a sin.

So he kept the integrity of what we are taught, as right and wrong according to Torah, even though judgements, or punishments, might differ.
so to pick a rod up on Shabbat is a sin but today people like to think Torah does not exist for us, or that its not contemporary enough (as though G-d does not know the future) so that the action is no longer even considered a sin, this is the issue here...not the punishment but whether we learn from Torah about the clean and unclean, the holy and the mundate, the holy nation and the rest of the nations.

Using extreme examples to suggest, 'this is why we dont follow Torah completely' could be used in connection with New Testament subjects also. Those who say they follow the Law of Christ rarely do even that, if they did they would be walking around with one eye or one arm as Yeshua said if this or that causes you to sin then cut it off. But in this teaching you understand what is sin and what is not sin, the same is understood through Torah...just because we dont like the punishment we dont just drop it and say, nah not today..as we dont with Yeshua. or else we can simply say, 'I dont want to cut out my eye, or cut off my hand so I will just say its ok to sin' ...and completely missing the point of his entire speech.

After all the disciples said the Torah exists to demonstrate how to live and avoid doing wrong. Yeshua was always for Torah, and taught it every time he spoke in Synagogue, and this was why they tested him in a similar way (with use of an extreme punishment for a crime mentioned in the Torah)

every single prophet of the past has told the people to return back to the way of G-d because each generation has marvels to entice people to turn away from his decrees, he is the first and the last and always, nothing has happened nor will happen that he didnt know before it does, the Torah was made for generation to generation, indeed as it is written, these are perpetual decrees for all time, and as Yeshua said, until heaven and earth go away not a single dalet will go from the Torah.

Remember that 'repentance' isnt to say sorry, it means to turn and to return, back to the ways of G-d, the hard and narrow path that few will follow, but wide is the path that many do follow but in their undisciplined existence they float around like chaff, not knowing right from wrong anymore...it is sad to see this on the general scale of society today.

 

[Desert Rose]

i agree with you on some points, even you lost me in the end a bit. I am not here to convince anybody of anything, prove a POV right or wrong, i am just too lazy for that and see no practical point. I wish to learn something.I am very practical person. I dislike demagoguery that conceils the truth.

so let be more direct . May i tell you, brother - i dont undertand how is that you insist that Torah havent changed. Ok, you say yourself that punishments are not required anymore, they are old, outdated, so bye- bye that piece of Torah.

What about uncleanness laws? Something that we spooked another guy off the forums with - You are striving to be a good husband i am sure. When MRS is sick, you are required not to touch her, not to fix her blanket, not to give her cough syrup, hug, love, kiss, support etc. BY Leviticus, if that is the wrong time of the month for her.

So that rule is bye- bye, too. You not obeying it. There are a ton of stuff in Torah that is old, immoral and outdated.

Actually - I truly wish some kind MJ soul would tell me - What from the Torah do you observe? Outside of moral laws.