Romans 3:23New King James Version (NKJV)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
28 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
It says over and over and over we are NOT under the law.
In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that what He commanded was not too difficult for us to obey, so the fact that God disagrees with your position completely undermines it, but you did not even address this point, so by continuing to argue for your position, you are saying that God lied and are denying our faith. In Romans 9:30 - Romans 10:10, the reason why the Israelites failed to obtain righteousness is because they shared your misunderstand of the goal of the Law, with the main difference being your conclusion about whether or not it should be obeyed in spite of what Paul said in Romans 3:31 about our faith not abolishing, but upholding the Law. Israel had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they did not understand that the righteousness of God comes only through faith in Messiah, so they pursued the Law as though righteousness were works in an effort to establish their own rather pursuing the Law as though righteousness were by faith, for the goal of obeying the Law is a relationship with Christ for righteousness for everyone who has faith. Our faith says that God's Law is not too difficult for us and to submit to God's Law is what it means to confess to Christ as Lord. It is meaningless to confess Jesus to be Lord while refusing to submit him as Lord by following his teachings, which were not his own, but that of the Father (John 14:23-24). In Philippians 3:8, Paul had been keeping the Law without having a focus on growing in a relationship with Christ, so he had been missing the whole point and therefore counted it as rubbish.
God said that His Law was given for our own good to bless us and to teach his children how to walk in His ways and I believe Him, but if you believe that the Law required perfect obedience or else we are put under a curse, then that would mean that God again lied and instead gave the Law in order to put His children under a curse. I mean, do you believe that Psalms 119:1 is true, that those who walk in the Law of the Lord are blessed? God does not curse those who seek to obey His commands, but those who disobey them and Christ came to free us from the curse of living in disobedience to the Law so that we could be free to enjoy its blessing. If the Law were about trying to become justified through perfect obedience, then there would be no point in repentance because it would already be too late, yet the message of pretty much every prophet up to and including Jesus was to repent from our sins, so clearly obedience to the Law has some purpose other than justification by perfect obedience. If you agree that we should repent from our sins and that the Law was given to reveal what sin is, then you should agree that we should live in obedience to the Law.
In regard to Romans 6:14, I completely agree that we are not under the law, but Paul specified that the law that we are not under is one where sin had dominion over us, which does not at all fit Paul's description of God's holy, righteous, and good Law, which he said was not sin, and which was the good that he delighted in obeying (Romans 7:7, 7:12, 7:22), but rather it perfectly fits his description of the law of sin, which was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to (Romans 7:13-20). Furthermore, it wouldn't make any sense to interpret Romans 6:14 as referring us not being under God's Law and then say in the next verse that we are permitted to do what God Law reveals to be sin. In addition, all of the surrounding context of Romans 6:12-19 is in favor of obeying the Law, where we are not to present ourselves as instruments of sin, but as instruments of righteousness.
In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of God's Law and obedience to God is straightforwardly about having faith in Him to redeem us from our disobedience and to teach us how to walk in His ways. Living by faith is always associated with submitting to God's will as made known through His commands, such as with every example of saving faith listed in Hebrews 11, whereas there are a number of verse where breaking faith is associated with an unwillingness to submit to God's will. So the Book of the Law is of faith, but man-made works of law are not. In Romans 3:27, Paul spoke about a law that was of works and a law that is of faith, and it is straightforward works of law that are of of works, while God's Law is of faith.
How are you keeping the Mosaic Law? Are you doing sacrifices? What kind of clothes are you wearing? Do you shave your face? How do you keep the passover? Are you traveling to Jerusalem every year during the passover?
I keep the Law by practicing what it requires of me and by practicing repentance when I do not. Paul continued to make offerings in Acts 18:18 when he took a Nazarite vow (Numbers 6) and he was on his way to pay for the offerings of others who had undertaken a similar vow in Acts 21:20-24 in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching Jews against obeying the Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. So offerings did not stop with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophesies a time when a third temple will be built and when offerings will resume (Ezekiel 44-46). I do not wear clothes with wool and linen mixed. The word use in the command not to mar the corners of our beards is more like the action of taking a neatly trimmed hedge and hacking away at it haphazardly with a chainsaw than the action of trimming an overgrown hedge to make the sides even, so I do not consider it to be a command against shaving my face, but rather it is more likely was speaking against a pagan practice. I keep Passover by doing a Passover Seder. The purpose of the pilgrimage festivals is to go up to the place where God's glory dwells, but His glory has not dwelled in Jerusalem since the destruction of the time in 70 AD, though we know that during the Messianic Age God's glory will once again dwell in Jerusalem and people will be making pilgrimages. Indeed, the purpose was to bring our tithes and first fruits to the temple, which again no longer exists. Yet, we know that the condition for Israel to return from exile was to turn back to obedience to God's Law (Deuteronomy 30:1-5), which required them to have access to a temple that they didn't have access to while in exile, so God counted honoring what we can do as full obedience.
1 Corinthians 5
6 Your glorying
is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.c]">[
c] 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness,
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
but with unleavened bread, noticed bread is italicized? That is a clue, when you discover what sincerity and truth is you will realize this is Jesus. This is NOT and endorsement of keeping the passover as it was prior to Jesus.
Whenever the KJV or NKJV italicizes a word, it is not a clue to a deeper meaning, but rather it indicates that the word was added for clarity because is not found in the original Greek of Hebrew. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. He explicitly stated that we should therefore keep the feast and then described that manner in which we should keep it, so even if it is a reference to Jesus, it would simply mean to keep Passover in remembrance of him, not that we should no longer keep Passover.
All of your talking points are the same talking points I can go and get from men who teach this Hebrew Roots. This is not by earnest revelation and understanding from personal study that you have this teaching. It is through the bewitchment of men and the teaching is in error.
I am not a follower of Hebrew Roots, though I do agree with them on a number of things, but it is not as though all of your talking points aren't the same taught to us growing up. A big part that led to changing my understanding of God's Law was reading Psalms 119 and realizing that the negative view of God's Law that I had been taught did not match the one extremely positive one expressed in Scripture, which was another major point that you did not respond to. I am the one who is saying that we should follow God's commands in accordance with the example that Christ set for his followers, while you are teaching against obeying the commands of your God and did not deny that the way to follow Christ is to break the Law that he followed, so very obviously I am not the one who has been bewitched. Do you think that Satan had to role to leading people to disobey God's commands in in the OT, but in the NT his role to get people to obey them? You are depriving yourself of the delight of getting to obey God's commands and walking in His ways.