Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[SabbathBlessings]

The concept of God's people as those in Christ through faith happens only in NT after the resurrection of Christ, not before as proven by the writing of Apostle John.

Until you read Hebrews 11.

 

[Studyman]

It took me a while to grasp the message you were conveying. What I've picked up from reading your comments (posts; #555, #556, #559, #566) is this:

Your definition of “Religious philosophy of men” = those who change/distort God's words to fit their lives = like that of the Pharisees = other voices.

Yes, in the God inspired Holy Scriptures there are many, many, examples of how men are deceived. In the beginning Eve was convinced by the religious philosophy of "another voice", (For God doeth know) which existed in the world God placed her in, to change/distort God's Words to fit her own fleshy desires.

Gen. 3: 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The Pharisees, the self-proclaimed preachers of God in Christ's time, did the exact same thing. Jesus shows us in His Testimony.

Mark 7: 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

and again;

Matt. 15: 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Paul warns as well.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

And again;

2 Cor. 11: 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

And Jesus warned those in the future of this same thing.

Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

There are volumes and volumes of examples and warnings about "The nations" (other voices) God left to prove His People, whether they would honor Him or not. God had these written for OUR, that is, New Priesthood Covenant believers, admonition. "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

But many don't believe the Spirit of God in this matter. They believe the warnings are always for "The other guy", not for them. Because they have been convinced, just as Eve was, "that you shall surely not die". Or as the Pharisees religions taught, "we are heirs to the promises of Abraham", or in the religions of this world I was born into "We are "eternally secure".

So it isn't "MY Definition" of the religious philosophy of men we are warned about. This understanding I am sharing comes from the belief in the OT and NT Scriptures, and God's instruction through them, to place my trust in the Holy Scriptures for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and to "Continue in them" as Paul instructed the Body of Christ over 14 years after Jesus ascended.

As opposed to placing my trust in one of the many religious sects and franchises (other voices) which exist in the world God placed me in, who all preach different doctrines and instruction in righteousness, but who all ultimately "reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep their own tradition"

 

[Cornelius8L]

Yes, in the God inspired Holy Scriptures there are many, many, examples of how men are deceived. In the beginning Eve was convinced by the religious philosophy of "another voice", (For God doeth know) which existed in the world God placed her in, to change/distort God's Words to fit her own fleshy desires.

Gen. 3: 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The Pharisees, the self-proclaimed preachers of God in Christ's time, did the exact same thing. Jesus shows us in His Testimony.

Mark 7: 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

and again;

Matt. 15: 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Paul warns as well.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

And again;

2 Cor. 11: 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

And Jesus warned those in the future of this same thing.

Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

There are volumes and volumes of examples and warnings about "The nations" (other voices) God left to prove His People, whether they would honor Him or not. God had these written for OUR, that is, New Priesthood Covenant believers, admonition. "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

But many don't believe the Spirit of God in this matter. They believe the warnings are always for "The other guy", not for them. Because they have been convinced, just as Eve was, "that you shall surely not die". Or as the Pharisees religions taught, "we are heirs to the promises of Abraham", or in the religions of this world I was born into "We are "eternally secure".

So it isn't "MY Definition" of the religious philosophy of men we are warned about. This understanding I am sharing comes from the belief in the OT and NT Scriptures, and God's instruction through them, to place my trust in the Holy Scriptures for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and to "Continue in them" as Paul instructed the Body of Christ over 14 years after Jesus ascended.

As opposed to placing my trust in one of the many religious sects and franchises (other voices) which exist in the world God placed me in, who all preach different doctrines and instruction in righteousness, but who all ultimately "reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep their own tradition"

I agree with you that we shouldn't put our faith in religious sects and franchises because we are each responsible for our own souls. At the same time, I believe most of the people who have posted here have read both the OT and NT many times, so “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself (Phi 2:3).”

We share what we've learned and try to understand what others have found to see if it makes sense. “Do not treat prophecies with contempt, but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.” (1 Th 5:20-21) It was God's will for us to test and be tested. “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Can’t you see for yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you—unless you actually fail the test?” (2 Cor 13:5)

 

[Cornelius8L]

Until you read Hebrews 11.

So, the concept was brought in after Christ through the list in Heb 11 of NT, and 1 Peter 2:10 “Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God;” and Rom 9:25 “I will call that which is not My people, My people;”

 

[Studyman]

I think you agreed that the OT and NT contradict each other.

No!! God forbid! I don't agree with any such thing. And either did Paul.

Acts 26: 13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

What were the Holy Scriptures Paul had access to in this time? The only Scriptures available to him was the Law and Prophets. He had no access to Matthews letters, John's Letters, Mark or Lukes Letters. Everything HE taught came from the Law and Prophets he is now instructing the Body of Christ to "Continue in", over 14 years after Jesus Ascended.

Who told you God's Holy scriptures contradict each other?

You choose to explain the NT with the OT, but I explain the OT with the NT. “And indeed, there must be differences among you to show which of you are approved (1 Cor 11:19).”

No you don't. You select and separate a few verses in the NT and try to use them to destroy or make void the Law and Prophets. And this to justify your religious lifestyle. In my understanding, the NT is the OT in action. The NT is the testimony of Jesus and the continuation of faithful men created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

When it comes to adultery and other actions that harm other people, the NT cites examples like the fruit of the Holy Spirit as a guide. But you OT supporter accuse us without taking into account that we knew what the fruit of HS was. You have to go to the other extreme to prove that we are breaking the OT laws.

EVERY member of the RCC, the Mormon religion, Calvinists, JW's, Baptists and all the many religions and religious sects which exist in this world God placed me in, make the same exact claim as you. "The HS is our guide". But just because a man calls Jesus Lord, Lord, doesn't mean HE knows them, much less been given His Spirit. Jesus tells men this in Matt. 7, but "many" don't really believe Him.

Since my youth I have listened to preachers talk about how the HS inspires them. For some, it inspires them to promote ancient pagan rituals and festivals, by placing Jesus name on them. The HS inspires them to despise and pollute God's Sabbaths, even rejecting God's and creating their own. The HS apparently inspires them to create huge religious businesses and sell Jesus name for profit. The HS inspires them to create images of God in the likeness of some long haired men's hair shampoo model. I actually saw for sale, a Jesus Bobblehead. 2 for 50$ and 25% to be sent to poor Ethiopians in service to Christ.

And then I heard you declare to the world, by what you now say was inspired by the Holy Spirit of Gold, "I love to eat swine's flesh, I ate some last night".

You simply don't understand that your disdain for the simplest, easiest to follow Judgments and Commandments of God are a symptom of a much greater problem. I can show you the Scriptures which spell this out. But I can't make you even consider them, much less believe.

Rom. 1: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

We see that the NT gets rid of customary laws but keeps the law's principles. You don't see it that way because you think that the "laws" in the NT can either refer to (a) the law that existed before Moses or (b) the law that existed after Moses (you say, "added").

Again, "you" got rid of God's Judgments and Commandments, not the NT. The religions of this world got rid of God's Judgments and Commandments, not the NT. The serpent in the garden convinced Eve to get rid of God's Judgments and Commandments. But Jesus never did. And Paul never did. And the New Testament never did.

This is a perfect example of why I didn't want to engage in the first place. PAUL said there was a "LAW" ADDED because of Transgressions 430 years after Abraham.

"Wherefore then serveth the law? "It was added" because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

I pointed out to you the Biblical Fact that the Levitical Priesthood Sacrificial "works of the Law" for forgiveness of Sins, didn't exist before Moses. Abraham was forgiven his Sins, but not by this Law of forgiveness "ADDED" 430 years after him. God said that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws., but the Levitical Priesthood didn't exist in his time. Levi wasn't even born.

You can read it for yourself. You attribute this "ADDED" term to me. But I am simply believing what is written.

Paul called the Traditions of the Pharisees "LAW". He called the 10 Commandments "LAW". He called the Priesthood Covenant with Levi "LAW". As it is written, he is hard to understand, and "many" twist his words, as they do the Holy Scriptures to promote their own religions.

But God's Laws, including what animals were Clean and what animals were unclean, adultery, about hating your brother without a cause, existed even before Abraham. The religion of this world you have adopted, doesn't teach you these things. And of course they don't The entire Bible warns you of this very thing.

Even though the OT never told the Jews to separate the laws in this way, you did it anyway.

Again, you attribute to me, what God did in scriptures over and over.

1 Sam. 15: 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.

22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

What the Jews did, was "work iniquity" knowing that they could just take a goat to the Levite Priest and be forgiven. This was not the purpose of the Levitical Priesthood. Its purpose was to prepare men and Lead men to the Rock of Israel, their redeemer. Like it did the Faithful obedient like Zacharas and Simeon and Rehab.

Hosea 6: 6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Psalms 51: 16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

So your religious philosophy that God didn't separate the Levitical Priesthood that changed, from God's Commandments and Judgments this "LAW" was ADDED to, is simply your religious philosophy. Because in the Scriptures, God separated the LAWS of God defining righteousness and Sin, from the "ADDED Priesthood LAW", added to provide for forgiveness to those who transgressed, "till the Seed should come.

But again, I can't make you believe what is written.

But you never thought to separate the law before and after Christ, which is what the Apostles told us to do.

This is my whole point, LOL. Are you even reading my posts? There was a Priesthood Law, (After the Order of Aaron) "ADDED" to God's Laws 430 years after Abraham obeyed, that was to be in force until the Prophesied Priest of God, "After the Order of Melchizedek" should come. Once the New Priest, who forgave sins apart from animal blood, but with His Own came, this Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron" was no longer needed.

What the deceiver promotes, is the deception that God's Laws defining sin cannot be separated from God's Priesthood Covenant with Levi. So that even after the Prophesied Priest came, they preach that to "keep God's Commandments", means also to continue to bring sacrifices to the Levite Priest, as to the ADDED Law. The Pharisees promoted this deception because their power and wealth came directly through their version of the Levitical Priesthood, making people come to them for redemption. The deceivers of this modern world, that come in Christ's Name, promote the same deception, to prove that God's Laws were abolished, claiming that one cannot be obedient to God's Laws, unless they partake of the Old Priesthood. Paul understood this lie about the God's Priesthood Law not being Separate from God's Law defining Righteousness and Sin. He exposed this by bringing to Light the truth of the Scriptures, which is Abraham was Justified by God "Apart" from this "ADDED" Law of forgiveness. And after the Faith of Christ is come, we are also Justified, apart from the "works of the Law" of forgiveness.

Again, I can show you the Scriptures, but I can't make you believe them.

 

[expos4ever]

Further on the matter of what, exactly, gets abolished in here in Eph 2:

by abolishing [s]in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances,

In this post, I want to go though the context in which this verse is embedded and (a) make the case that the author is saying that it is the Law of Moses that is being abolished; and (b) demonstrate the untenability of the counter-proposal that the author is telling us that it is man-made traditions, or add-ons to the Law of Moses, that are being abolished.

To state the obvious, the author's intent here is to make the case that whatever it is that has been polished has brought about the union of the Jew and Gentile.

Therefore remember that previously you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, [m]excluded from [n]the people of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away [o]have been brought near [p]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [q]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [r]by abolishing [s]in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [t]make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace; 16 and that He might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, [u]by it having put to death the hostility. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the [v]saints, and are of God’s household,

First, we hit the topic of circumcision. Is circumcision a human tradition question? Or is it one that was imposed upon the Jews by God? If Jew and Gentile are to be brought together, that is to be truly one family, this distinction of the circumcised vs the uncircumcised has to go. Already we see that what needs to change is a distinction one ordained by God, not by human tradition - abolition of human tradition would do nothing to dissolve the distinction conferred by circumcision.

Next we get the statement About how the Gentiles were excluded from Israel and therefore the covenant. What makes better sense here given that the author is making a case for the union of the Jew and Gentile? That the Law of Moses is being abolished? Or that man-made stuff is being abolished? What is it that marked out the people of Israel from the Gentiles? What constituted the "membership charter" for Israel alone and and that marked them out as those to whom the covenant promises were made? It is, of course, the Law of Moses. In first century Palestine, this would have been punishingly obvious, So the hypothesis that it is the law of Moses that is being abolished makes perfect sense here as we know that the author is about to say that whatever it is that gets abolished dissolves this distinction between the Jew and the Gentile.

How does the other hypothesis fare here? How is it not obvious that human traditions are not the basis for the covenant promises? Did God make promises to Israel and seal with those promises with human traditions? Of course, it is the Law of Moses that has this role. So to abolish those human traditions would do no work in bringing Jew and Gentile together for precisely the reason that the Law of Moses, given to Jews and for Jews only, would remain intact.

I suspect my opponents will try to make this case the union is brought about by bringing the Gentiles under the law of Moses. Obviously, this is a possibility at first glance. But there is no way this idea can survive the text. No sane person who believed that the Jews and Gentiles are now both under the law of Moses, and are thereby unified, would ever make that case with a statement about "the Law" being abolished where there was even the most remote possibility that people would interpret that as being the law of Moses. Instead of a statement about abolition of the law, if it were the case that the union of Jew and Gentile is to be effected by bringing them both under the law of Moses, we would have an entirely different statement that referred clearly indicates Jew and Gentile are now both under the Law. We do not - we get the exact opposite - it is simply beyond debate that it is specifically the abolition of something that has unified the two groups.

After the statements about abolishing whatever it is that gets abolished, the author speaks of God making the two people one. Since the Law of Moses clearly marked humanity into two camps, abolition of this law would fit the bill perfectly. While the Jews created man-made traditions that the Gentiles did not share, the Law of Moses would remain as a barrier if, as others are suggesting, it is human traditions that are being abolished.

Finally, we get the statement about how Gentiles are now fellow citizens with Jews. How is it not obvious that this could not be the case unless the law of Moses's were being abolished for the same reasons enumerated above.

To summarize, the neutral reader should be very suspicious of an argument that appeals to the meaning of a particular word, in this case the Greek word "dogmasin", to make the case that human traditions are what is being abolished, and yet entirely avoids explaining how that interpretation or meaning makes sense in the broader context of the overall passage.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

So, the concept was brought in after Christ through the list in Heb 11 of NT, and 1 Peter 2:10 “Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God;” and Rom 9:25 “I will call that which is not My people, My people;”

No, Hebrews 11 highlights people in Christ through faith, which you claimed didn’t exist in the OT. Note, Rehab in Hebrews 11, not a Jew but saved by faith. Ruth, not a Jew- your people are my people, your God, my God. Grafted in through faith, not a nationality.


Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.

In the OT it was faith looking forward to Jesus in the NT it is faith looking back at the Cross. It’s always been faith of Jesus Christ. There are only two groups, those who are with Jesus and those who are against, the saved or the lost, those who are in Christ through faith or those who are not, not a nationality. Those who have faith in Christ walk a certain way as demonstrated throughout the entire bible. Romans 3:31, Revelation 14:12

 

[expos4ever]

Another poster gave us this verse from Galatians:

"Wherefore then serveth the law? "It was added" because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

I am not going to try to make a case about this verse. I just want to point out the compelling connection to this from Romans 5. Remember, Paul is the author of both letters.

The Law came in so that the offense would increase....

Both texts deal with God's motivation for introducing the Law.

What is Paul saying here in Romans 5? Reading the phrase "naturally" leads to the startling conclusion that Paul is saying that the law makes things worse - that it increases soon in Israel. No doubt others will argue that when Paul says "the offense would increase", he really means that the offense will be revealed. Again, I will advise readers that when you find someone trying to tinker with the meaning of words, red flags should go up. To reveal something is not the same thing as to increase something.

Think of it this way: No rational person would say that the police set up speed traps so that speeding will increase when, in fact, the intent (obviously) is that speeding would be revealed.

I believe Paul means exactly what he says: it was God's divine intention to use the law to magnify and increase sin in Israel. Of course, this appears to be at odds with a myriad of Old Testament statements about how the law is good. Well, and this is a point those on the other side have to gloss over, it is entirely conceptually coherent that the law can be a good thing and yet still cause Israel to become more sinful. In fact, Paul explains exactly how this works in Romans 7 where he argues that although the law is good, it operates on the fallen human nature, and thereby increases sinful desires. The result is that the Jew becomes more sinful not less. Again, those on the other side will how with disapproval claiming that this is absurd - why in the world would God be motivated to make Israel more sinful?

Although Paul's argument is subtle, I suggest Paul's argument is this: God gives the law so that the power of sin will be concentrated in the nation of Israel so that it can then be passed on to her representative Jesus and dealt with on the cross.

 

[expos4ever]

What you seem gleefully ignorant of here, is that if Jesus doesn't return and raise the dead, there is no Salvation.

Here is what Jesus says on the Cross in the Young's Literal Translation:

After this, Jesus knowing that all things now have been finished, that the Writing may be fulfilled, saith, `I thirst

The Greek word rendered as "finished" is a form of "teleo". Here is the definition from Strongs:

to bring to an end, complete, fulfill

This makes it clear: when Jesus cries "it is finished", He certainly can be legitimately understood as saying "it is fulfilled".

And you are faced with the very challenging task of explaining the seeming coincidence about how this aligns perfectly with what Jesus says in Matt 5 about how the Law will end when all is fulfilled.

Now then, you are arguing that all could not be fulfilled since, for example, the dead have not been raised.

But it does not matter what you, or I for that matter, believe about what constitutes "fulfilling" or "finishing" all things. What matters is what Jesus believes. And His words on the cross speak for themselves.

 

[Studyman]

Plus, you added your own idea of (c) Pharisee's law when the NT was referring to OT law. And it's strange that you kept the Sabbath law and a few other laws but got rid of the one about sacrifices, even though both the Sabbath and sacrifices are part of the "added" law.

Again, it was Paul and Jesus who exposed the truth about the "Pharisees Laws". And I posted the Scriptures for your examination. But as I feared, and said so in the beginning, you are not here to examine scriptures, but to justify your own religious philosophy. Nevertheless, here they are again.

Phil. 3: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, (For this Law) persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the (Pharisees) law, blameless.

Will I have to now have to convince you that God's Law didn't promote the Persecution of His Own Church?

Gal. 1: 13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Again, will you now preach to the world that God's LAW persecuted His Own Church? Or can we agree that the Pharisees established their own Righteousness?

Matt. 15: 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

John 19: 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

John 7: 19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

So again, your religious philosophy, and the teaching of the NT are two completely different gospels. To believe you, that when the NT speaks to the Pharisees Law it speaks to God's Laws, I would have to render both Paul and Jesus a liar.

And why would I do that? To justify some random religious philosophy of this world? No thank you. I would rather that you stand back, and consider what is actually written, and maybe consider that the warnings God gave us are for both you and I, in this world HE placed us in.

You established your own "categories of laws," and it seems to me that you are what you defined as "Religious philosophy of men," those who alter/distort God's words to fit their own righteousness, despite the fact that the True Author of the Bible (God) explicitly states that there is only One Lawgiver (James 4:12), where no one can set other laws in His domain.

I knew this would happen from the onset, and I explained as much. There is no "conversation" about what the Scriptures actually say. There is only your religious philosophy, and your justification of it. It is you who created the term "category of Laws". I am simply pointing out a Biblical Fact that God's Priesthood Covenant with Levi was Temporary in its conception. God surely knew this Priesthood would change, and prophesied of this change in the Law and Prophets over and over, even promising us a New Covenant.

But if God is true, and His Priesthood Covenant was the Covenant that changed, that is;

#1. The manner in which God's Laws are administered.

#2. The manner in which transgressions of His Law is Forgiven.

That means the Religions of this world of Jesus and Paul's Time, and also the religions of this world of You and My's time, are deceived and deceiving.

Which aligns perfectly with every Scripture and Every Warning from the beginning to the end of the Bible.

How you understand Paul's teaching depends on how you freely fill in (a), (b), and (c), and this behavior fits into your own definition of "Religious philosophy of men." For example, in post #396, you said that Paul's removal of circumcision in Galatians 5:2–3 was referring to the religious practices of the Pharisees by putting words in his mouth when he was clearly talking about circumcision by the law.

Well I am thankful that you are at least addressing actual Scriptures.

I was hoping you might actually consider why God created a human with Flesh that must be ruled over or removed, in order to receive Salvation. I also showed you where God defined His Circumcision as "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." And also that Paul teaches the body of Christ that Circumcision is still required.

Paul also told you;

Rom. 2: 25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Jer. 9: 24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. 25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; 26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

Again, you are promoting falsehoods about Paul and God. Paul didn't "Remove" God's Law of Circumcision, nor did he make it void. But as he himself teaches. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

He exposed the mainstream preachers of his times teaching of Circumcision, who rejected the Flesh which was to be removed.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Just as Abraham did, and Caleb, and Joshua, and Gideon, and Zacharias and every example of Faithful man in the Bible.

The idea that you really believe God was only interested in the loose skin surrounding the penis is fascinating to me. It's hard to believe you don't know God any better than that, given what is actually written.

Another example is that you talk about the temporary priesthood in the OT, but this idea didn't exist before or after your defined "Added" law (It came later in the NT).

Again, because "many", who come in Christ's Name, don't Glorify God as God, they don't believe HE knows the end from the beginning, or that the entire concept of "Time" itself, was created by God. Consider the following Scriptures Inspired by God "Before" the NT.

Psalms 119: 4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Psalms 45: 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Psalms 78: 67 Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: 68 But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.

Psalms 62: 6 He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved. 7 In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God.

Now Consider the words of Zacharias.

Luke 1: 67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; (From Judah, not from Levi) 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

And again, from Simeon.

Luke 2: 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

And Anna,

37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

Luke 24: 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Your preaching that no one knew of the coming change of the Priesthood "Order of Aaron" to be changed to the eternal Priesthood "After the Order of Melchizedek" until the NT was written is foolishness. There were many faithful men who understood the New Covenant God promised, and that it was the "Change in the Priesthood". The Pharisees didn't know, because they didn't Glorify God, "As God", and created their own doctrines, commandments and traditions of men, as Jesus tells us. This world's religions can't "see" Him, "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him:", for the very same reason. But they don't know it for the reasons Paul gave.

There can be not doubt that Zacharias, Simeon, Anna and the Wise men "DID" know Him and had a faith in Him which exceeded the faith of even some of His Disciples, even as the Gentile women whose daughter was made whole. Shall I omit these truths from my understanding just to justify or support some random religious sect or philosophy of this world God placed me in? There was a time that I did, but not anymore, by the Grace and Mercy of God.

 

[expos4ever]

Cherry pickers never understand because they are quote-mining and stripping the letter of its Logos in order to insert their own logos into the text. Because of this egregious error the cherry picker hardly ever pays much attention to the actual context, and just as Paul says, the letter kills.

Is there an actual case being made here?

 

[Studyman]

In post #517, you said that because there is death, there is still sin, which shows that the law is still there. I don't agree with what you said because Moses died naturally, not because of sin, and he showed himself to Jesus (Matt 17:3). I'm not sure where your answer in post #566 fits, though.

That wasn't the death Paul was speaking to. He was speaking to the Death which comes from serving another god, or submitting oneself to obeying some random religion or religious tradition or philosophy of man. The death that comes from Sin. You can read it for yourself.

Rom. 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Moses died the death of all men. But Moses didn't "show himself" to Jesus, Like Moses has power to "show himself". God Showed this vision for Peter, James and John's Sake.

5While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

And later; 9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

So given Jesus Own Words, this was a Vision from God. Moses didn't come down from heaven, God did. Or are you implying Jesus is the son of Moses?

I'm not sure where your answer in post #566 fits, though.

You will have to be more specific.

When talking about how to understand Jesus in Matthew 12:4, Jesus said that David broke the law, and in Matthew 12:5, he said that the priests broke the commandment.

We look at these Scriptures differently. You are using these select verses to justify your rebellion and disobedience to God's Commandments and Judgements which are contrary to your traditions and lifestyle, or certainly those traditions acceptable to one of the many religious sects you may have adopted. I am looking at them to understand Jesus and the God who sent Him.

Matt. 12: 1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

And again;

10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

Accuse Him of what? The exact same thing you are accusing Him of, and that is Him rebelling against and rejecting God's Commandments. Especially since Jesus openly exposed their disobedience to God. The argument is, "how can you accuse me of sin, when you are sinning? Or in your case, "Jesus broke God's Law and was blameless, therefore we can also break God's Law and will not be held accountable."

The Priesthood of God is responsible for defining God's Laws. David, fearing for his life, went to the Priest of God for help. The Priest was in charge of making Just judgments. He made the Judgment that helping David, by giving him the only food available, was just. And rightly so. So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread. Should this Priest have denied God's Anointed the only food available to him? That is what you would have judged God's Law as meaning, and perhaps the Pharisees as well. But not Ahimelech the priest, and not the Rock of Israel.

Jesus walked in fellowship with His Disciples, away from the Temple which had been taken over by the children of the devil, on the sabbath day. His disciples were hungry, so they picked a blackberry or apple or ear of corn along the way to eat, it doesn't matter which, only to say they didn't eat earth worms or slugs. Nor did they build a fire to cook a meal, nor did they sell what they picked to others.

As it turns out, it is not against God's Law to take a walk in fellowship with God and pick a raspberry to munch on along the way. Just as it wasn't against God's Law for a Levite Priest to help His Anointed in times of great need. Nor was it against God's Laws for the Levite Priests to burn fat on the alter, essentially profaning God's Sabbaths.

Since Jesus was now their High Priest, it is His Priesthood duty to make Just Judgments. And HE did just that.

11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. (Always has been) 13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. 14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

Just be careful you don't follow their motivation.

We're not discussing mercy at this point. Instead, we are talking about what it means to break the law or a commandment. You don't seem to understand Jesus, just as you didn't understand the pattern of truth. And we don't need to re-paint the image of Christ on top of what He has already shown us. But since you choose which law "a, b, or c" Paul was talking about, you also choose what Christ should be like.

Yes, I am talking about what it means to break God's commandments or Laws, as was Jesus. Were we differ, is you are looking at these verses through the prism of justifying disobedience. I am looking at these scriptures to determine doctrine.

Also, please read Leviticus 23:3 and understand what it means to have a "sarced assembly" when it comes to keeping the Sabbath as the law requires. During his 40 days in the desert, did Jesus keep this?

Did Moses, who God gave the Sabbath to the Israelites through, obey your definition of God's Sabbaths when HE went up to God for 40 days and 40 nights?

In your religion, what do you preach Jesus did for the 40 days and nights before the tempter came? I am not sorry for not agreeing with your accusations against Jesus for "Breaking God's Laws". And it is clear you have little, or no idea what the Sabbath is for, nor have you any clue regarding God's Law regarding it.

This is a new accusation against Jesus and Moses though, that they broke God's Sabbaths in the 40 day Fast from the world. If you only understood that God's sabbaths IS a fast from the World.

 

[Studyman]

Cornelius8L said:
And Jesus should permit them to stone the adulteress in accordance with the law in Lev 20:10

He did Cornelious. He didn't forbid even one of those men from stoning her. This is true, but you can't accept it. He didn't judge even one of those sinful men and you don't say a single peep about it. Everyone one of those men were guilty of sins way worse than hers, even in trying to trick a man who was only telling them the truth. Where is your judgment of them, since you are so eager to Judge the Woman? They judged themselves and knew full well that God never intended for sinners such as themselves, to carry out a punishment against others. Especially since the whole debacle was designed to trick Jesus. "Where are thine accusers" Jesus said, doeth no man accuse you? No Lord, no man. But you still do.

But you don't "see" any of these truths. You only see justification for your own disobedience.

because He can see well from a vast distance according to John 1:48, and John 8:17-18 state that the Father can testify alongside Him, so they would be two witnesses.

But they didn't testify against her. Not God and not Jesus. Why is that? Because God and Jesus are hypocrites and liars? Breakers of their own Laws? Respecter of persons? To believe you, I would have to believe these things. I am always astounded at how easily you guys take the Pharisees word, how you make your judgments about people based entirely on what these children of the devil say. What do you know about this woman other than what these known liars and murderers told you? Absolutely nothing about her. You only know her accusers made a judgement against her they themselves were not willing to stand by.

Absolutely Astonishing.

But why did Jesus add to the law in order to arouse people's consciences? He did the same to the commandment that forbids murdering. Why does Jesus add something to the commandments that the law forbids (Deut. 4:2)?

Don't tell me. You are now going to preach that Jesus added to God's Laws. No doubt you will use Matt. 5 in your attempt to once again, accuse Jesus of rejecting the Law and Prophets, and creating His own Laws. Another ancient deception.

Matt. 5: 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

The deceiver would have us believe the "Them of old time" was God and His Prophets. And that Jesus is contradicting them. But HE isn't, at least not the Jesus of the Bible.

Lev. 19: 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

So the TRUTH is, that Jesus is talking about the Scribes and Pharisees who, according to the Law and Prophets, were partial in the Law. They taught "Some" of God's Law but omitted much of it. Jesus didn't teach this. HE teaches as it is written " Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

I'm not making this stuff up, you can read for yourself.

Mal. 2: 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

Jesus also teaches you this, but "many" don't believe Him.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

So Cornelius8L, who taught you Jesus "ADDED" the Law about being Angry with his brother without a cause?

1 John 3: 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

It is a horrible, insidious falsehood promoted by this world's religions, that Jesus broke His Father's Commandments, that Jesus "Triumphed over God" on the Cross", that God never taught men to Love their brothers, or that Jesus "Went about to establish Him Own Righteousness" and refused to Submit to the Righteousness of God. And yet, this is the very foundation of this world's religions. I hope you might consider, and then "Come out of her".

Regarding Zechariah, your question was presented in an odd manner when we were talking about circumcision. Anyway, Zechariah saw an angel. “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.” (1 Cor 4:20) Pharisees are nothing but talk. However, Zechariah was silent after the angel appeared because he didn't believe in God's power, thus your argument is flawed. (Luke 1:20).

Of course it is flawed to a person who believes so many awful untruths about Jesus. But Zacharias was "righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.", and he did know Jesus, even better than most in my experience.

As your accusation against Zacharias, let's look at what the Scriptures actually teach.

18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.

19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

Yes, Zacharias was weak in the faith in his old age. But he asked for a sign, and God gave Him one. You can bet when John was born, Zacharias Praised God and HIS Faith was much stronger.

Isn't this why God Chastises His Sons?

Heb. 12: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Clearly Zacharias was a child of God, my brother in Christ. Should you be so quick to judge him, or those who understand him.

Yes, we understand the Scriptures differently. There is a reason.

 

[Studyman]

Here is what Jesus says on the Cross in the Young's Literal Translation:

After this, Jesus knowing that all things now have been finished, that the Writing may be fulfilled, saith, `I thirst

The Greek word rendered as "finished" is a form of "teleo". Here is the definition from Strongs:

to bring to an end, complete, fulfill

This makes it clear: when Jesus cries "it is finished", He certainly can be legitimately understood as saying "it is fulfilled".

And you are faced with the very challenging task of explaining the seeming coincidence about how this aligns perfectly with what Jesus says in Matt 5 about how the Law will end when all is fulfilled.

Now then, you are arguing that all could not be fulfilled since, for example, the dead have not been raised.

But it does not matter what you, or I for that matter, believe about what constitutes "fulfilling" or "finishing" all things. What matters is what Jesus believes. And His words on the cross speak for themselves.

Your religious philosophy notwithstanding, Jesus Himself said HE will return and that "ALL" will be fulfilled. You are free to take one word or one sentence, separate it from every other Word Jesus or His father, or the Prophets prophesied or spoke, and then create a justification for yourself by them. But as you said, it doesn't matter about your religion, only what Jesus Spoke. Not only what HE spoke on the last day of His Life as a human, but "ALL" of His Words, even those before HE was murdered, and After he was murdered. Even those word's HE spoke as the Rock of Israel.

At least this is what I believe.

 

[Bob S]

Your religious philosophy notwithstanding, Jesus Himself said HE will return and that "ALL" will be fulfilled. You are free to take one word or one sentence, separate it from every other Word Jesus or His father, or the Prophets prophesied or spoke, and then create a justification for yourself by them. But as you said, it doesn't matter about your religion, only what Jesus Spoke. Not only what HE spoke on the last day of His Life as a human, but "ALL" of His Words, even those before HE was murdered, and After he was murdered. Even those word's HE spoke as the Rock of Israel.

At least this is what I believe.

Jesus said He came to FULFILL the Law. He didn't tell us He came to fulfill everything. Your answer to expos4ever lakes comprehension.

 

[expos4ever]

If you claim that the Torah was nailed to the stake, (or cross), according to your reading of the passage and statement, then you need to explain who the principalities and powers are that the Messiah triumphed over by nailing the Torah to the stake because that is what Paul states. Here is the KJV without the verse numbering scheme.

Colossians 2:14-15 KJV ~ Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

By saying that he triumphed over them in it Paul clearly means by doing what he just said he did, nailing whatever it was that was nailed to the stake. You say it was the Torah that was nailed to the stake, (or cross), and therefore I am asking you: who were the principalities and powers that he triumphed over by nailing the Torah to the stake?

I believe the principalities and powers represent the "demonic powers" that were defeated at the cross. I believe that in this thread, I have asserted my understanding that, on the Cross, God dealt a blow against the "power of evil":

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

You may, understandably, object that "sin" is not really the same kind of thing as "principalities and powers". However, it is clear from Romans 7 that Paul is, during the argument that spans both chapters, using the word "sin" to refer to demonic evil powers. So here in Romans 8, Paul claims they were defeated on the cross.

Bottom line: I see no inconsistency between

(a) claiming the Law was nailed to the cross
(b) that demonic principalities and powers were defeated on the cross.

If you think there is an inconsistency, please explain.

Your responses are illogical in comparison with the text. Who gave the Torah? Whoever gave the Torah, that is who he triumphed over by nailing the Torah to the stake,

God gave the Torah and God triumphed over the principalities. What is the error in logic?

Just because you deny the implications of your theory by not taking your theory to its conclusion does not mean that is not what you are teaching by default,

What implications are in any way problematic? Please explain to me exactly where there is any inconsistency in what I am saying about this text.

And as already referenced, we know from two places in the Apostolic writings that the Torah was given through the instrumentality of angels, which are, of course, spoken of as principalities and powers in other places, whether good or evil.

Again, where is the problem? I have never suggested that God defeated any angel at any point.

Isolating scripture statements and cutting them off from N/T doctrine, so that they can be manipulated, only serves to deceive oneself. And this is all in addition to the fact that dogma is never used in reference to the Torah anywhere in the scripture.

It is used in Ephesians 2, where Paul says the Law, yes the Law, is composed of "dogmasin". You, of course, will no doubt redefine "Law" to mean something other that what it obviously means - the Law of Moses.

 

[Studyman]

Jesus said He came to FULFILL the Law. He didn't tell us He came to fulfill everything. Your answer to expos4ever lakes comprehension.

Actually, Here is what Jesus said when a man actually reads the Scriptures.

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

Would "fulfilling" the Prophets not mean to "Fulfill" their Prophesies about Him?

Perhaps you should shore up your comprehension before judging mine.

 

[expos4ever]

Your religious philosophy notwithstanding,

What religious philosophy are you talking about. I have simply used the Scriptures and reason. Find the errors in my reasoning, if you can. But let's leave vague, meaningless claims about "religious philosophy out of it.

Jesus Himself said HE will return and that "ALL" will be fulfilled.

Fact: On the Cross Jesus declares "it is finished", using a word that can also be rendered as "fulfilled"
Fact: Jesus connects the end of the Law with the time when all is fulfilled - the parallel here cannot be denied.
Fact: Jesus' use of "when heaven and earth pass away" language is consistent with an established tradition of using metaphor

It is, I suggest, beyond debate that these facts certainly allow us to say there is at least a plausible case that, in Matt 5;17-18, Jesus is not saying the Law will last till the literal end of time.

I do not deny that Jesus said that when He returns all is fulfilled. But, He also uses language on the cross that can reasonably be interpreted as "It is fulfilled".

I see nowhere for you to do on this - a solid plausibility argument has been mooted to the effect that we should take Jesus literally when He says the Law will last "till heaven and earth pass away".

And that is all I need to do - show plausibility for a non-literal reading.

You are free to take one word or one sentence, separate it from every other Word Jesus or His father, or the Prophets prophesied or spoke, and then create a justification for yourself by them.

The irony here is off the chart: It is me who is appealing to Old Testament precedent to make the case that Jesus is speaking metaphorically. And it is me who has shown the striking parallel with the "It is finished" utterance on the Cross. Taking one sentence? Please.

 

[Leaf473]

Would "fulfilling" the Prophets not mean to "Fulfill" their Prophesies about Him?

(I hope you don't mind me jumping in here )

In that same passage,
Therefore, whatever you desire for people to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

That's what he came to fulfill, doing to other people what we want done to us imo.

And boy, did he ever!

 

[daq]

I believe the principalities and powers represent the "demonic powers" that were defeated at the cross. I believe that in this thread, I have asserted my understanding that, on the Cross, God dealt a blow against the "power of evil":

Exactly. You believe that the Messiah nailed the Torah to the stake and that in so doing he triumphed over demonic principalities and powers. Thus you confess by default that the Torah is a product of demonic principalities and powers, while instead, both Stephen and Paul say that the Torah was given through the instrumentality of angels, and we know they do not mean evil angels: for Acts says that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit when he gave his testimony, and Paul states that he himself believes all things written in the Torah and the Prophets in Acts 24:14.

Moreover now you also add that you believe God dealt a blow against the power of evil at Golgotha by having His own Son nail His own Torah to the stake, thus confessing that you also believe the Torah is something evil, given by evil and demonic principalities and powers. And of course you do not see any problem with your argument: for that is what you actually believe, and that is king, regardless of how offensive it may be to the Father and His Son.

You have also said that, as God, the Messiah has the authority to set aside, do away with, bring to an end, or abrogate the Torah: in this you confess that, as God, he also gave the Torah at Sinai to begin with. And in this you teach that even the Son himself is an evil principality and demonic power who gave the Torah to begin with. Thus, according to your tangled web, the Son came to defeat himself at Golgotha realizing he made a mistake in giving the evil Torah which needed to be abolished so you can be free from sin. And the strong delusion is complete for refusing the love of the truth.