So what law was abolished when Christ came? (Rom. 10:4)
You seem to be saying the OT Law and the NT Law are THE SAME.
(Jer.31:31-34) clearly disagrees with you.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
#1. A new covenant will be made in the future with Israel and Judah.
#2. It will not be according to the Old Covenant.
#3. The New Testament covenant will have a provision for sin. (Heb. 8:6-13)
Both Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 speak about having a superior mediator and being based on better promises, so that is the way that they are not alike, however, neither says anything about following different laws, so that is not one of the ways that they are not alike, but rather they both say that the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 8:10).
You seem to be double talking when it comes to (Eph.2:15) and regarding a law being abolished. It is hard to disregard that word abolished isn't it. But if one acknowledges the word abolish he must also acknowledge the law which was to be abolished (past tense).
Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such as God's law, works of the law, and the law of sin, so if you assume that Paul is always speaking about God's law, then you are guaranteed to misunderstand what he wrote. For example, in Romans 3:27, he contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, and in Romans 7:25, he contrasted God's law with the law of sin. So Paul spoke against works of the law, but in Romans 3:31, he said that our faith upholds God's law and you should be careful not to take what he only said against obeying works of the law as being against obeying God, especially because he was not an enemy of God.
So you would need to make the case for why Ephesians 2:15 should be interpreted as referring to God's law and interact with the reasons that I have given for why it couldn't be referring to God's law. I think that Ephesians 2:15 is most likely referring to abolishing man-made laws, such as the one that Peter mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews to visit or associate with Gentiles, which were creating a dividing wall of hostility.
Which law ended with Christ coming?
Romans 10:4 has nothing to do with abolishing any laws, but rather the surrounding and the broader context show that it is speaking about Christ being the goal of the law. For example, in John 5:39-40, Jesus said that the Scriptures testify about Him, in Luke 24:27, Jesus began with Moses and the Prophets, interpreting to them all of the things in Scripture concerning himself, and in Hebrews 10:7, the volume of the scroll is written about Jesus, so the focus of everything in the law is to testify about how to grow in a relationship with Christ. The only way to do away with a law that testifies about Jesus is to first do away with what it testifies about. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying His law, so saying that there were any laws that were ended at Christ's coming is claiming that he is a false prophet.
In Luke 16:16-18, Jesus said that the law was until John and that since then the Gospel of the Kingdom has been preached, namely to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, so the fact that he was speaking about the Torah still being taught after John means that he was not speaking about it ending with him. Furthermore, Jesus went on in verses 17-18 to teach obedience to the law and to say that it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the least part to disappear from the law, so he was not speaking about a law that he thought had already ended. Lastly, neither John or Jesus taught people that that the law had ended and they needed to stop repenting from their sins, but just the opposite.
Here is why I eat shrimp.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
In 1 Timothy 4:1, Paul described what he was speaking about as being the doctrines of demons, so do you consider the holy, righteous, and good commandments of God to be doctrines of demons? If so, then that is blasphemy, if not, then you shouldn't interpret what Paul was speaking against as referring to God's law.
Ac 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common. Furthermore, God did not rebuke Peter for calling something unclean, but only rebuked him for calling animals common, and the Bible does not use those words interchangeably, so why are you acting like he was instead rebuked for calling animals unclean? Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to Gentiles and didn't say a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, yet you're somehow acting like that was actually the point of his vision.
In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so following those instructions testifies about God's holiness.
Here is why I do not obey the 10 commandments (OT Law).
Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
The Law which we are not to go back to is defined in verse 6.
Circumcision was commanded under the OT Law.
All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Christ began his ministry with that message, so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning us against doing that and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, so that is not the way to fall from grace, but the way that Christ was gracious to us. He set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, so he graciously taught us how to obey it by word and by example.
Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to obey God's law as if obedience to God were somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.
