Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Doug Brents]

BobRyan said:
If something remains then it remains from a prior point in time, by definition.

Sorry to disappoint:
remained; remaining; remains
intransitive verb
1 a: to be a part not destroyed, taken, or used up
only a few minutes remain
b: to be something yet to be shown, done, or treated
it remains to be seen
2: to stay in the same place or with the same person or group
especially : to stay behind


Remains:
noun

1. the parts left over after other parts have been removed, used, or destroyed.
   "the remains of a sandwich lunch were on the table
2. historical or archaeological relics.
   "Roman remains
3. a person's body after death.
   "he left instructions regarding the disposal of his remains
   
   The usage in the verse in question fits with the verb definition 1a. And that does not require a prior time frame which it “remains”. It is simply what is left now.
   

That is not logical. Do you have a more likely explanation for the prior point in time from which it remains - other than the one named in the text itself. (or are you sticking with "right now" 2000 years after that statement was written as the prior point in time? or is it "Dinner" that is your final solution ??

You need something reasonable as the alternative.

As a matter of fact, yes.
The sabbath rest that remains for us under the New Covenant is the only imperishable thing that exists, Jesus Christ my Lord. And “Today” is the day to enter into Him and His rest, because yesterday is past and cannot be recaptured and tomorrow my never get here.

The NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 writes the moral law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers "on heart and mind" and that means it is still a "Sin" to take God's name in vain - even when Christians do it.

Indeed it is. But that is because the command was given in the New Covenant. The command to keep the sabbath was not.

Both the New Covenant and the Old Covenant have the unit of TEN to define what sin is "Sin IS Transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 even in the NT.

Just wow! You assign “the Law of Moses” to 1 John 3:4?
“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.”
Where is “the Law” in that verse? Hmmm?

He law of faith is the law of the New Covenant, not the Law of Moses of which the 10 Commandments is a part.

No wonder that for all eternity after the cross in the new Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

No wonder even in the NEW Testament "the Sabbath was made FOR mankind" Mark 2:27

Yes, a sabbath rest was made for mankind. And He came to Earth to live as one of us, to be our kinsman redeemer, and take our suffering so we can take His rest.

 

[Doug Brents]

1 Cor 7:19 - your argument is with the text "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
1 John 5:3 "this IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"
John 14:15 "IF you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments"
Ex 20:6 "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments"

No, you’re not listening.
I didn’t ask where Scripture said we must keep the commandments of God.
I asked, “what commandment of the Law does not constitute a “work of the Law”? Why must we keep the Law when the Law will not bring about the justification of any man?”
“The Law” is the Law of Moses.
Where in the New Covenant we are commanded to keep the Law of Moses?

 

[Doug Brents]

As is also the case with the 7th day Sabbath commandment - in the NT.

Not true.
Rom 14:1-9 - “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to have quarrels over opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and the one who eats, does so with regard to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and the one who does not eat, it is for the Lord that he does not eat, and he gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.”
In this passage we are told that both the sabbath mandate and the dietary restrictions of the Old Covenant are not a matter of Law but of conscience for the New Testament Christian.

By contrast Rom 14 makes no mention at all of the weekly Sabbath - but points us to the annual holy days of Lev 23 telling us that some observe one of them above the others -- while another man observes them all.

You are reading into that passage your preconceptions. It makes no mention of annual anything. It mentions “one day over another” versus “all days the same”. You value one day over the other. I value all days the same. Are you fully convinced? Yes! Then God bless you. Well done. I also am fully convinced. And the passage above says God blesses me as well. End of argument!

 

[Doug Brents]

Yes, that's exactly what it is, and why the covenant is renewed. You and I have two different covenants as we speak: for I see the covenant as viewed through the teachings of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, the covenant having been renewed and refreshed by his Testimony in my heart and mind and understanding. You still see all things the old way even though you claim it has been canceled. It hasn't even been canceled in your own manner of thinking because you still see it the old way proving by your own beliefs that it is not canceled. If it was canceled you wouldn't be here so worried about it and arguing against God's Word with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength.

It doesn't matter in the least how YOU SEE THE COVENANTS. God said there are two, the Old that was fulfilled and made obsolete by Jesus, and the New that was paid for and sealed with Jesus' blood on the cross. The New replaces the Old.

I am not arguing against God's word at all. I am arguing, as Paul did, for Christ. You, who would see us still obeying the Law as a means to salvation, are following a covenant God said was fulfilled and replaced.

Messiah has set me free from the dogmas and decrees of men.
You'll need to start actually proving what you say using scripture.

Already did that, and you misinterpret and obscure it with Old Covenant references that mean nothing to the conversation.

There are very clearly two separate cups in the Luke passage: I do not necessary mean two different physical cups, and I sure hope you are not playing that game to get out of what it says: it's one cup with the supper and one after or at least toward the end of the meal, whether or not the same exact cup was used again. There is surely a third cup but it isn't mentioned in any of these particular passages so there is no reason to speculate.

There are four cups drunk during the Passover Sader. They are:

1. The Cup of Sanctification
2. The Cup of Plagues
3. The Cup of Redemption
4. The Cup of Praise

The meal is eaten between the second cup and the third.
Luke 22:17-19 - "And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood."
Indeed there are two cups mentioned in this passage, but the one that is significant is the second one mentioned, the third cup of the meal, the Cup of Redemption, the New Covenant in Jesus' blood. The first cup mentioned here is not the cup of which I was speaking earlier. It is irrelevant to our discussion here.

You admit that the covenant with Abraham was renewed to his offspring but you say it is not renewed to you and yet claim to be his offspring. Or do you not believe the Master, and Yohanne the Immerser, and Paul likewise, when they teach that believers are children of Abraham through belief and faithfulness?

The first covenant, the covenant with Abraham, contained a promise that a deliverer would come and redeem Israel. Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise, and He fulfilled the covenant made with Abraham. So yes, I am an heir of that promise (as are all true New Covenant Christians) even though I am (we are) not a physical descendant(s) of Abraham.

Paul's words in the immediate context refute your theory:

Galatians 4:1-2 KJV
1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

That does not refute anything I have said. A child (the nation of Israel) is a servant, and is under tutors (the Old Covenant), but when he becomes a man (when Christ came) he becomes an heir to the Father and all His house.

 

[Doug Brents]

In the first century the Pharisees would have called what you see in the following image file either a tradition of the Elders, or more likely, a "custom of Moses", (just as they do with their interpretation of circumcision in Acts 15:1).

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1918251/jewish/What-Are-Tefillin.htm

Where is this commanded in the Torah of Elohim?

I do not care about the traditions of the Pharisees. I asked about the Law of Moses: the commands that God actually handed down from Mt Sinai as recorded in Exodus through Deuteronomy. Which ones of them do not constitute a "work of the Law"?

 

[daq]

You, who would see us still obeying the Law as a means to salvation,

False accusation. I have never said any such thing.

are following a covenant God said was fulfilled and replaced.

No, that is your interpretation of various passages combined which you are using to put words into the mouth of God.

Already did that, and you misinterpret and obscure it with Old Covenant references that mean nothing to the conversation.

There are four cups drunk during the Passover Sader. They are:

1. The Cup of Sanctification
2. The Cup of Plagues
3. The Cup of Redemption
4. The Cup of Praise

Some say three while some say four: that changes nothing.

The meal is eaten between the second cup and the third.
Luke 22:17-19 - "And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood."
Indeed there are two cups mentioned in this passage, but the one that is significant is the second one mentioned, the third cup of the meal, the Cup of Redemption, the New Covenant in Jesus' blood. The first cup mentioned here is not the cup of which I was speaking earlier. It is irrelevant to our discussion here.

You were already shown in the other thread that your interpretation is a bold-faced error that you are now doubling down on. Just because other people are not willing to blind their eyes to the scripture doesn't mean they are wrong and your forced error is true. It's nothing more than magical thinking on your part where you believe that if you simply ignore the truth it doesn't count.

Here it is again for you from the previous thread:

There are multiple cups at the Seder. The first cup mentioned in Matthew and Mark does not contain the word kainos, (new or renewed), in the oldest manuscripts.

Matthew 26:27-29 ASV
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mark 14:23-25 ASV
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

The observant reader may see from the contexts that this is the same cup mentioned in Luke 22:17, but is not the cup which you have brought up because that one is after the first which is mentioned in Matthew and Mark. We therefore have multiple covenants confirmed. The first mention in Matthew, Mark, and Luke 22:17, is the covenant concerning "the many", while the new-renewed covenant is personal, private, and individual, "for you", (at that point, firstly, his disciples who had endured with him through his ministry).

Luke 22:17-20 ASV
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. [Mat 26:29, Mark 14:25]
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

One does not get to drink of the latter cup after the supper while having skipped the main meal.

GOD'S DIETARY LAWS AND BAT SOUP STEW - COVID 19

And the brothers and sisters in the Church in Galatia to whom he addressed the letter. And by extension, all the Christians who read and believe the Bible is God’s Word today. You can suggest that I assume too much all you want. I am just reading what the Scripture says. The Old Covenant was a...

www.christianforums.com

Nothing has changed from what was said there and nothing is going to change. You either believe the scripture or you make up excuses to not believe the scripture and suffer the consequences in erroneous beliefs. The Matthew and Mark passages are clearly the first cup mentioned in the Luke passage while they do not mention the second cup in the Luke passage. The first cup is for the many, which includes the Adamic, Noachic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and all others, which are confirmed in the Matthew and Mark passages that do not contain the word kainos, (new-renewed). Only the second cup from the Luke passage is the kainos-new-renewed covenant. You are not going to magically wipe away scripture facts into oblivion by ignoring them.

The first covenant, the covenant with Abraham, contained a promise that a deliverer would come and redeem Israel. Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise, and He fulfilled the covenant made with Abraham. So yes, I am an heir of that promise (as are all true New Covenant Christians) even though I am (we are) not a physical descendant(s) of Abraham.

You just got through sweeping the covenant with Abraham off the table because you do not wish to believe it was confirmed in Matthew and Mark as detailed once more above. You cannot rightly justify canceling the covenant with Abraham because it doesn't agree with your dogma and then turn around and claim to be a child of Abraham even though you say his covenant was not confirmed in Messiah.

That does not refute anything I have said. A child (the nation of Israel) is a servant, and is under tutors (the Old Covenant), but when he becomes a man (when Christ came) he becomes an heir to the Father and all His house.

You became a man when Messiah came? How many times should we go over this? You are rejecting N/T teaching that we all enter into the faith as a babes, not as fully grown adults. You have been taught by men that you get to skip the babe stage, skip the child stage, and go straight to manhood: but no wise father sets his untested babe or child over all his goods.

 

[daq]

I do not care about the traditions of the Pharisees. I asked about the Law of Moses: the commands that God actually handed down from Mt Sinai as recorded in Exodus through Deuteronomy. Which ones of them do not constitute a "work of the Law"?

None of them constitute "works of the law" because the Torah is full of the Living Oracles of Elohim. I just tried to show you "works of the law" but apparently you have no interest in understanding how far off base you are: if you actually understood you wouldn't need so desperately to cancel the Word of Elohim.

If you refuse to see that this dispute is about interpretation, just so that you can hold on to your current interpretations, and yet your interpretations of the Torah are the same as the Pharisees in the Gospel accounts: then are you not just as spiritually blind as the Pharisees in the Gospel accounts? You interpret the Torah the same way they did and do: according to the physical, the natural, and the flesh.

 

[Doug Brents]

False accusation. I have never said any such thing.

You don’t have to. God said it is either the Law of Moses or Christ. You can’t have both.
Gal 5:4-6 - “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.”

No, that is your interpretation of various passages combined which you are using to put words into the mouth of God.

I am not putting words in God’s mouth. On the contrary, He has put words in mine. Each of the several passages I have posted alone prove that the Old Covenant is not binding on us today, but the vast number of them is an overwhelming force of Scripture.

You were already shown in the other thread that your interpretation is a bold-faced error that you are now doubling down on. Just because other people are not willing to blind their eyes to the scripture doesn't mean they are wrong and your forced error is true. It's nothing more than magical thinking on your part where you believe that if you simply ignore the truth it doesn't count.

Here it is again for you from the previous thread:

There are multiple cups at the Seder. The first cup mentioned in Matthew and Mark does not contain the word kainos, (new or renewed), in the oldest manuscripts.

Matthew 26:27-29 ASV
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mark 14:23-25 ASV
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

This is totally irrelevant. The sign of the charge against Jesus in Matt 27 also does not say that Jesus was from Nazareth. But we are told in John 19 that He was, and that the sign was in three languages. It doesn’t matter that these details were left out by Matthew.

This is the same thing we see with the cups. Matthew may not have mentioned the New Covenant, but that doesn’t change the fact that Luke and Paul both say that the cup after the meal was the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood. Your protestations do not change God’s word!

The observant reader may see from the contexts that this is the same cup mentioned in Luke 22:17, but is not the cup which you have brought up because that one is after the first which is mentioned in Matthew and Mark.

Wrong again.
Matthew says that Jesus took the bread, and then He took the cup. In Mark it is the exact same. Then in Luke we see that Jesus took one cup and said He would not drink it again until He drank it in the Kingdom of God. Then He took the bread, and then He took the other cup. This second cup in Luke is the cup mentioned in Matthew and Mark.

We therefore have multiple covenants confirmed.

No, only one covenant. The old was made obsolete in Christ.

The first mention in Matthew, Mark, and Luke 22:17, is the covenant concerning "the many", while the new-renewed covenant is personal, private, and individual, "for you", (at that point, firstly, his disciples who had endured with him through his ministry).

Luke 22:17-20 ASV
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. [Mat 26:29, Mark 14:25]

Wrong. This cup is not the one mentioned in Matthew and Mark. Very easy to see the difference.

19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

For them and all the rest of the World (John 3:16).

One does not get to drink of the latter cup after the supper while having skipped the main meal.

Jesus IS the meal.

Nothing has changed from what was said there and nothing is going to change. You either believe the scripture or you make up excuses to not believe the scripture and suffer the consequences in erroneous beliefs.

Right back at you. Ignoring the passages that say the Old Covenant was made obsolete, and that Jesus died to seal a New Covenant, and that we are no longer bound to the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses, but are now bound to Christ and the Covenant in His blood does not make them any less Scripture.

The Matthew and Mark passages are clearly the first cup mentioned in the Luke passage while they do not mention the second cup in the Luke passage. The first cup is for the many, which includes the Adamic, Noachic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and all others, which are confirmed in the Matthew and Mark passages that do not contain the word kainos, (new-renewed). Only the second cup from the Luke passage is the kainos-new-renewed covenant. You are not going to magically wipe away scripture facts into oblivion by ignoring them.

Not ignoring them at all. I just won’t allow you to redefine Scripture because you think we should be bound to the Old Covenant still.

You just got through sweeping the covenant with Abraham off the table because you do not wish to believe it was confirmed in Matthew and Mark as detailed once more above. You cannot rightly justify canceling the covenant with Abraham because it doesn't agree with your dogma and then turn around and claim to be a child of Abraham even though you say his covenant was not confirmed in Messiah.

Oh but I can.
Rom 11, Eph 3:6, and Gal 3:29 tell us that the Gentiles who believe in Christ are grafted int Israel, and made heirs of the promise to Abraham that God would forgive sins and redeem us.

You became a man when Messiah came?

No, humanity did. Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear with the analogy. Consider mankind as a single entity. In hos infancy, God spoke directly to individuals. Then in the youth of mankind, He spoke through the Law and Prophets, our schoolmaster. But when He decided the time was right, He sent His Son to remove the schoolmaster and make us heirs (mankind had come of age as it were).

How many times should we go over this? You are rejecting N/T teaching that we all enter into the faith as a babes, not as fully grown adults. You have been taught by men that you get to skip the babe stage, skip the child stage, and go straight to manhood: but no wise father sets his untested babe or child over all his goods.

No, I have not been taught that by men, nor am I saying any such thing. Yes, we must learn the Scripture when we first come to Christ. Yes, a new convert is not to be given the duties and responsibilities of an Elder (as an example from Scripture).

 

[Doug Brents]

None of them constitute "works of the law" because the Torah is full of the Living Oracles of Elohim. I just tried to show you "works of the law" but apparently you have no interest in understanding how far off base you are: if you actually understood you wouldn't need so desperately to cancel the Word of Elohim.

If you refuse to see that this dispute is about interpretation, just so that you can hold on to your current interpretations, and yet your interpretations of the Torah are the same as the Pharisees in the Gospel accounts: then are you not just as spiritually blind as the Pharisees in the Gospel accounts? You interpret the Torah the same way they did and do: according to the physical, the natural, and the flesh.

No, I interpret the Torah through the lens of the New Covenant, through Christ. He, through His inspired writers, has said that the Old Covenant was fulfilled, that the Torah is obsolete, that we are no longer subject to the Law of Moses, that to cling to the Old Covenant is to cut yourself off from Jesus. You cannot say that this is not what Scripture says. It is painfully obvious right there in the Text.

 

[daq]

You don’t have to. God said it is either the Law of Moses or Christ. You can’t have both.
Gal 5:4-6 - “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.”

Again, I have not said that either I myself or anyone else is "justified by the law". That is your false accusation which you made for you to destroy like a strawman, and thereby, imagine that you are justifying your own dogma built on misunderstandings of Paul's words and teachings.

I am not putting words in God’s mouth. On the contrary, He has put words in mine.

If God puts words in your mouth then how is it that you keep falsely judging the brethren? Do you not know that according to the Master and even Paul you bring judgment down upon yourself when you judge others? Please review Matthew 7:1-5 and Romans 2:11-11.

Each of the several passages I have posted alone prove that the Old Covenant is not binding on us today, but the vast number of them is an overwhelming force of Scripture.

That's still the same misunderstanding and misuse of words by changing definitions and the meanings of Paul's words and teachings. The old is the old way of understanding the covenant, and it's true that the old way of understanding is no longer binding, and that's a big part of the freedom or liberty we have in walking in the new understanding, thanks to the Testimony of the Messiah freely offered up for us in the Gospel accounts, which Testimony he paid for with his life and blood.

This is totally irrelevant. The sign of the charge against Jesus in Matt 27 also does not say that Jesus was from Nazareth. But we are told in John 19 that He was, and that the sign was in three languages. It doesn’t matter that these details were left out by Matthew.

This is the same thing we see with the cups. Matthew may not have mentioned the New Covenant, but that doesn’t change the fact that Luke and Paul both say that the cup after the meal was the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood. Your protestations do not change God’s word!

Your dogma doesn't change God's Word: it says what it says and is never going to change. Apparently you simply have not studied the passages close enough to be able to see what has been said here and in the other thread. Why is it so hard for people to see things they do not wish to see? If at least you were able to see what I am talking about in the passages, at least then you would understand the argument, so that you could then decide whether or not you agree. You are debating against something that you are not even able to see in the text.

Matthew 26:27-29 ASV
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mark 14:23-25 ASV
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:17-20 ASV
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. [Mat 26:29, Mark 14:25]

Matthew 26:27 = Mark 14:33 = Luke 22:17 = first cup mentioned
Matthew 26:29 = Mark 14:25 = Luke 22:18 = statement concerning the first cup mentioned

Luke does not mention the first covenant from Matthew and Mark but it is there because of the contexts in those passages. You cannot just ignore it or delete it. The first mention of the first covenant is sandwiched in between Luke 22:17 and Luke 22:18 but isn't mentioned in Luke. These companion passages fit together hand in glove regardless of whether or not you are able to see it or willing to accept it.

This second cup in Luke is the cup mentioned in Matthew and Mark.

Wrong again: see above.

Wrong. This cup is not the one mentioned in Matthew and Mark. Very easy to see the difference.

Ahah, now you begin to backpedal.

For them and all the rest of the World (John 3:16).

The Gospel is personal and individual, "to you", (which is why it is different from the Matthew and Mark passages and a different cup), for it is unto each in his or her own appointed times, the time appointed of the Father when a babe or child becomes a tried, true, and tested son, just as Paul also teaches and you have been shown from his words and the author of Hebrews also.

Jesus IS the meal.

His Testimony is tantamount to his blood because he paid for that Testimony with his life and blood, and yet that Testimony he says was not his own, and we know that he received it from the heavens, from the Father, (John 3:27-36). Therefore anyone who claims his name but does not believe his Testimony has trodden under foot the Son of Elohim, and has counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of Grace: for his Testimony is Spirit just as he says in John 6:63.

Right back at you. Ignoring the passages that say the Old Covenant was made obsolete, and that Jesus died to seal a New Covenant, and that we are no longer bound to the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses, but are now bound to Christ and the Covenant in His blood does not make them any less Scripture.

Not ignoring them at all. I just won’t allow you to redefine Scripture because you think we should be bound to the Old Covenant still.

No, you who agree with the Pharisaic old way of reading the Torah are the one you accuse me of being, and the fact that you keep casting false judgments at me proves what I say, for you claim that you are "not under the law" but firmly anchor yourself therein every time you judge another: and to judge someone falsely is way worse than if your judgment was correct. According to the Master, whose words you ignore: you are practically begging to be judged. Moreover correcting your erroneous misunderstandings of the scripture is not changing the scripture.

Oh but I can.
Rom 11, Eph 3:6, and Gal 3:29 tell us that the Gentiles who believe in Christ are grafted int Israel, and made heirs of the promise to Abraham that God would forgive sins and redeem us.

Yes, of course, you can cancel the covenant with Abraham from your heart and mind and your version of the scripture, and you can claim that the Master did not confirm that covenant with Abraham in the Matthew and Mark passages already quoted and explained, and then you can turn around and claim for yourself the promises of Abraham based on Pauline-Only dogma extracted from the teachings of Paul in quote-mined cherry-picked excerpts, ignoring the warning in 2 Peter 3:15-17, and you can also go about making all sorts of false judgments, condemnations, and strawman arguments against those trying to show you the truth: but having already seen the end of such things, and knowing the terror of the Master, we persuade men.

 

[daq]

No, I interpret the Torah through the lens of the New Covenant, through Christ. He, through His inspired writers, has said that the Old Covenant was fulfilled, that the Torah is obsolete, that we are no longer subject to the Law of Moses, that to cling to the Old Covenant is to cut yourself off from Jesus. You cannot say that this is not what Scripture says. It is painfully obvious right there in the Text.

Claiming that the Torah is obsolete or canceled is not an interpretation of anything in the Torah. Claiming that filled up or crammed to the full means fulfilled is highly debatable.

Moreover it isn't possible for the old way of understanding to be fulfilled because that was never what the Torah was teaching to begin with. I attempted to engage you concerning this but you didn't want to hear anything about the works of the law which Paul says so much about and rails against for good reason.

It remains the same as previously stated: you are here making a bunch of false accusations due to your own misunderstandings of the scripture. No one is running around here claiming that we are justified by the works of the law, or that all males must be physically circumcised, or that the Pharisee handwashing ritual must be performed before eating, or that one must wear a tallit and put on teffilin before saying the Shema every morning, or wear tzitzit on the four wings of the hem of the garment.

You have tossed out the Word of Elohim together with all these things.
You have assumed too much in your glee to cancel the Torah.

 

[Ceallaigh]

In all of Christianity for 2000 years, there are two denominations which are prolific in claiming that Christians are bound by the Old Covenant.

The Seventh Day Adventist denomination which started in the 1860s.

And the Messianic denomination which started in the 1960s.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

In all of Christianity for 2000 years, there are two denominations which are prolific in claiming that Christians are bound by the Old Covenant.

The Seventh Day Adventist denomination which started in the 1860s.

And the Messianic denomination which stared in the 1960s.

God has always had a people who kept His commandments, but its always been a remnant Revelation 12:17 It’s sad how many people believe that God did not write His laws in the New Covenant when God said He did, instead of deleting them Hebrews 8:10. God identidies His laws right in the Ten Commanemnts - “MY COMMANDMENTS” Exodus 20:6 how much clearer can God be- which is why the Sabbath is included and was kept decades after the cross instead of ending Acts 18:4, Acts 13:44, Acts 13:42 Matthew 24:20 and continues on forever just as God promised. Isaiah 66:23. If people do not want to keep God’s holy Sabbath day now, I am not sure why one would suddenly want to in heaven. God gives us free will and would never force one to do something they are so opposed to.

Thank goodness there are people reminding others about God’s Commandments that will never end. Revelation 11:19. One of the biggest hoax is the deception that has deceived the majority that one no longer needs to keep the Ten Commanemnts, that God personally wrote for us. Exodus 31:18, Exodus 32:16 and is in heaven Revelation 11:19 in the place where God dwells. Lucifer thought he did not have to obey God and its not wise to think one can follow the same path of disobedience and expect a different outcome, even when we are warned Hebrews 4:11 God’s Commanemnts are meant to bless us. Psalms 19:7 including the Sabbath Isaiah 58:13-14.

 

[Soyeong]

Good question.

A covenant is an agreement between two (or more) parties.

In Scripture, a covenant is also referred to as a testament, or a will. Frequently a covenant will have stipulations for each side to fulfill during the term of the covenant. The Law falls into this category. The Law is a part of the Covenant made with Abraham, but it was not added to that covenant until the covenant was renewed with Moses on Mt Sinai. So when God says that the Old Covenant is obsolete, that means that the agreement and all the parts of it (the Law) are obsolete.

While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same law for how to act in accordance with His nature, which is why Jeremiah 31:33 says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Law of Moses in our minds and writing in our hearts. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so any laws that God has ever given for our to act in accordance with His righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under (Psalms 119:160). The only way for laws for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness to become obsolete is if God's eternal righteousness has first become obsolete.

Likewise, sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. For example, it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, long before the Mosaic Covenant was made, during it, and it remains a sin after it has become obsolete, so there is nothing about any number of covenants being made or becoming obsolete that will ever change whether or not it is a sin to commit adultery.

The Bible often uses the same terms to describe aspects of the nature of God as it does to describe aspects of the nature of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), and it could not accurately be described as such if it were not God's instructions for how to act in accordance with those aspects of His nature. So the only way that the New Covenant could have a different set of laws would be if it were made with a different God with a different nature than the God of Israel. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves following the Law of Moses, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete in 8:13, God's eternal nature and His eternal law for how to act in accordance with His nature did not become obsolete along with it.

 

[Doug Brents]

Again, I have not said that either I myself or anyone else is "justified by the law". That is your false accusation which you made for you to destroy like a strawman, and thereby, imagine that you are justifying your own dogma built on misunderstandings of Paul's words and teachings.

Then for what purpose do you cling to the Old Covenant? It is no longer the law by which we are to serve God. It is no longer the standard by which we measure our righteousness. What purpose is there in adherence to a canceled and completed covenant?

If God puts words in your mouth then how is it that you keep falsely judging the brethren? Do you not know that according to the Master and even Paul you bring judgment down upon yourself when you judge others? Please review Matthew 7:1-5 and Romans 2:11-11.

I have said many times that if you choose to keep the sabbath, or eat kosher, or celebrate the High Holy days of the Old Covenant, that is between you and God. But to say that the mandates of the Old Covenant are still binding on us today is contradictory to the Scripture. And we are called to judge in matters of righteousness. If you were committing a sin and I knew about it, it is my duty before God to bring it up with you and help you overcome that sin (James 5:19-20).

That's still the same misunderstanding and misuse of words by changing definitions and the meanings of Paul's words and teachings. The old is the old way of understanding the covenant, and it's true that the old way of understanding is no longer binding, and that's a big part of the freedom or liberty we have in walking in the new understanding, thanks to the Testimony of the Messiah freely offered up for us in the Gospel accounts, which Testimony he paid for with his life and blood.

Again you are back to a "new understanding of the Old Covenant" argument? If that is what you hang all your argument on then we don't really need to continue. There are TWO covenants. The Old was first established with Abraham, and it was renewed with Isaac, and again renewed with Jacob, and again renewed with Moses. Notice that every time it is renewed, God refers back to the covenant that He made with Abraham. But in Christ He does not look back to the covenant with Abraham. He says He is establishing a NEW Covenant; New not renewed. I have already posted the Scriptures that say all of this, so I will not repost them here. But if you need me to....

Your dogma doesn't change God's Word: it says what it says and is never going to change. Apparently you simply have not studied the passages close enough to be able to see what has been said here and in the other thread. Why is it so hard for people to see things they do not wish to see?

Boy, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Just wow.

If at least you were able to see what I am talking about in the passages, at least then you would understand the argument, so that you could then decide whether or not you agree. You are debating against something that you are not even able to see in the text.

Matthew 26:27-29 ASV
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mark 14:23-25 ASV
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:17-20 ASV
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. [Mat 26:29, Mark 14:25]

Matthew 26:27 = Mark 14:33 = Luke 22:17 = first cup mentioned
Matthew 26:29 = Mark 14:25 = Luke 22:18 = statement concerning the first cup mentioned

Luke does not mention the first covenant from Matthew and Mark but it is there because of the contexts in those passages. You cannot just ignore it or delete it. The first mention of the first covenant is sandwiched in between Luke 22:17 and Luke 22:18 but isn't mentioned in Luke. These companion passages fit together hand in glove regardless of whether or not you are able to see it or willing to accept it.

Wrong again. Jesus' blood is only the blood of one covenant. The blood of the Old Covenant was the blood of calves and goats (Heb 9:16-20). Jesus' blood is the blood of the New Covenant. Any mention of Jesus' blood being the blood of the covenant is talking about the NEW Covenant, not the Old.

Matt 26:26-29 - "Now while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it with you, new, in My Father’s kingdom.”"

Mark 14:22-25 - "While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many. 25 Truly I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine again, until that day when I drink it, new, in the kingdom of God.”"

Luke 22:15-20 - "And He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood."

1 Cor 11:23-25 - "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”"

Now, each of these has some differences, but the meaning is the same. The blood of the covenant that Jesus laid down for us (everyone, not just the Apostles at the table with Him), is the blood of the New Covenant. This is the only covenant that is active today.

The Gospel is personal and individual, "to you", (which is why it is different from the Matthew and Mark passages and a different cup), for it is unto each in his or her own appointed times, the time appointed of the Father when a babe or child becomes a tried, true, and tested son, just as Paul also teaches and you have been shown from his words and the author of Hebrews also.

The Gospel of Christ is both for every man (and woman), and personal. It is both at the same time. Jesus' blood was shed for the whole world, and for you individually. Yes, each of us comes to Christ individually. Masses go into Hell together, but we enter Heaven individually as we come to faith. But this does not indicate two covenants active today. There is only one, the New Covenant in Jesus' blood.

No, you who agree with the Pharisaic old way of reading the Torah are the one you accuse me of being, and the fact that you keep casting false judgments at me proves what I say, for you claim that you are "not under the law" but firmly anchor yourself therein every time you judge another: and to judge someone falsely is way worse than if your judgment was correct. According to the Master, whose words you ignore: you are practically begging to be judged. Moreover correcting your erroneous misunderstandings of the scripture is not changing the scripture.

We will all be judged by the Righteous Judge, but I do not fear His judgement because I have been washed in His blood and stand by faith in His righteousness. I despise the Pharisaic way of adding to the Law to build a hedge around It so as to prevent us from violating it. I despise the practice of heaping commands one each other that we ourselves are not able, or even willing, to lift ourselves. This is what the Pharisees did. I do not. You are free to worship God in the way that pleases you best as long as it does not violate the mandates of the New Covenant (worshipping God with an orgy is not righteous worship. But worshipping on Sunday, or Thursday, and not worshipping on Saturday could be righteous worship if the worshipper believes that it is).

Yes, of course, you can cancel the covenant with Abraham from your heart and mind and your version of the scripture, and you can claim that the Master did not confirm that covenant with Abraham in the Matthew and Mark passages already quoted and explained, and then you can turn around and claim for yourself the promises of Abraham based on Pauline-Only dogma extracted from the teachings of Paul

It matters not who the writer was, the Author is God. Paul, James, John, Luke, Peter, ... none of them matter in the least. It was not their words, but God's words through them, that went onto the page.

in quote-mined cherry-picked excerpts, ignoring the warning in 2 Peter 3:15-17, and you can also go about making all sorts of false judgments, condemnations, and strawman arguments against those trying to show you the truth: but having already seen the end of such things, and knowing the terror of the Master, we persuade men.

Everything I have said is consistent with the whole message of Scripture. It is not "quote-mined cherry-picked excerpts", but God's word taken in context with the full meaning of the entire passage in mind. All of those who are Jewish (biological descendants of Abraham) who do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah are cut off from Israel, and are condemned to Hell for their unbelief, just as all Gentiles who fail to believe in Jesus as the Messiah are condemned. All of the Jewish people who believe in Christ remain in spiritual Israel and are heirs of the promise to Abraham, just as all Gentiles who believe that Jesus is the Messiah are grafted into Israel and become heirs of the promise to Abraham. This is consistent with many, many passages from Scripture, and all of Scripture as a whole speaks of this truth.

You prove that God did not mean what He said in the passages I quoted previously. Show me how the Gentiles are not grafted into Israel (taking their spiritual nourishment from God) and are not heirs to the promise of Abraham through Christ. Nothing you have said yet has proven any of my arguments wrong.

 

[Doug Brents]

Moreover it isn't possible for the old way of understanding to be fulfilled because that was never what the Torah was teaching to begin with.

It was not the "old way of understanding" the Torah that was fulfilled. It was the commands, prophecies, and spirit of the Old Covenant that was fulfilled.

I attempted to engage you concerning this but you didn't want to hear anything about the works of the law which Paul says so much about and rails against for good reason.

I know the "works of the Law". They are written all through Genesis through Deuteronomy. They are not the writings of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, but the writings of God that tell us what the works of the Law were.

It remains the same as previously stated: you are here making a bunch of false accusations due to your own misunderstandings of the scripture. No one is running around here claiming that we are justified by the works of the law,

That is good to hear you say.

or that all males must be physically circumcised,

This is the one work of the Law that you mention here, and you are correct that this act is no longer mandated to receive salvation. But it was under the Old Covenant. Without circumcision a man would be cast out of Israel, and no longer be an heir of the promise to Abraham. Now, if one commandment of the Old Covenant is no longer valid, then NONE of the commandments of the Old Covenant are valid, because covenants are not "pick and choose your piece of it" deals. They are ALL OR NOTHING.

or that the Pharisee handwashing ritual must be performed before eating, or that one must wear a tallit and put on teffilin before saying the Shema every morning, or wear tzitzit on the four wings of the hem of the garment.

These are all parts of the Pharisaic "hedge" around the Law.

You have tossed out the Word of Elohim together with all these things.
You have assumed too much in your glee to cancel the Torah.

I do not toss out the Word. None of what I have said is my word. It all comes directly from God's Word. God's Word is my only authority, and when He said that He made the Old Covenant obsolete so that He could make a New and better Covenant, that is the only Word on the matter.

 

[Ceallaigh]

God has always had a people who kept His commandments, but its always been a remnant

SDA is not God's set aside remnant leaving virtually all of the rest of Christianity in the dark. That idea came from someone who was literally brain damaged after getting hit in the head with a brick which resulted in "visions".

 

[Doug Brents]

While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same law for how to act in accordance with His nature, which is why Jeremiah 31:33 says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Law of Moses in our minds and writing in our hearts. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so any laws that God has ever given for our to act in accordance with His righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under (Psalms 119:160). The only way for laws for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness to become obsolete is if God's eternal righteousness has first become obsolete.

If this were true, then circumcision would still be mandated in the New Covenant. It was a pivotal commandment in the Old Covenant, and central to their identity. Yet we are told that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything in the New Covenant. That means that His laws can, and have, changed.

Likewise, sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. For example, it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, long before the Mosaic Covenant was made, during it, and it remains a sin after it has become obsolete, so there is nothing about any number of covenants being made or becoming obsolete that will ever change whether or not it is a sin to commit adultery.

Another example of a Law that changed from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant was the dietary restrictions. Eating unclean animals under the Old Covenant was a sin, but God has made all things clean (Acts 11:9), so eating those same things (pork, squid, etc.) is no longer sin.

The Bible often uses the same terms to describe aspects of the nature of God as it does to describe aspects of the nature of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), and it could not accurately be described as such if it were not God's instructions for how to act in accordance with those aspects of His nature. So the only way that the New Covenant could have a different set of laws would be if it were made with a different God with a different nature than the God of Israel. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves following the Law of Moses, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete in 8:13, God's eternal nature and His eternal law for how to act in accordance with His nature did not become obsolete along with it.

Heb 8:10 does not talk about the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was one part of the Mosaic Covenant (which was actually the Abrahamic Covenant renewed again: the Old Covenant). And when the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled by Christ it became obsolete, along with all the parts, addendums, attachments, laws, and requirements of it.

Now, you are right, that the nature of God has not changed, and His moral righteousness has not changed. But He has changed things that He required of us. Under the Old Covenant adultery was sin, but looking at a woman and fanaticizing about her was not (technically) a violation of the law. Just as murder was a sin, but hating a man and wishing he were dead was not a violation of the law. But these things are sin in the New Covenant, while eating pork and working on sabbath are not sin in the New Covenant though they were in the Old.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

SDA is not God's set aside remnant leaving virtually all of the rest of Christianity in the dark. That idea came from someone who was literally brain damaged after getting hit in the head with a brick which resulted in "visions".

Perhaps you didn't read what I posted, the scripture states that God's people are a remnant and they keep His commandments Revelation 14:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. The SDA's are not the only ones who keep God's commandments, so never claimed exclusivity nor claimed that all Adventists will be saved, only God knows this, but we are given a message to remind everyone what most people forgot.

God's commandments came from God and He claimed His law right in the Ten Commandments that He personally wrote for us. Exodus 31:18, Exodus 32:16 Exodus 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Jesus reminds us to keep God's commandments over man-made rules. Matthew 15:3-9


We are also reminded that we cannot edit God's commandments Deut 4:2 or any of His Word. Proverbs 30:5-6 because God's law is perfect for converting the soul Psalms 19:7, so no edits needed.

 

[daq]

This is the one work of the Law that you mention here, and you are correct that this act is no longer mandated to receive salvation. But it was under the Old Covenant. Without circumcision a man would be cast out of Israel, and no longer be an heir of the promise to Abraham. Now, if one commandment of the Old Covenant is no longer valid, then NONE of the commandments of the Old Covenant are valid, because covenants are not "pick and choose your piece of it" deals. They are ALL OR NOTHING.

This which you say concerning circumcision confirms just about everything I have already said. You still view the Torah according to the mind of the Pharisees, as shown by this admission, and the remainder of your understanding is the same: natural and physical. Circumcision wasn't canceled, deleted, or done away with: you simply do not believe the Torah is spiritual, as Paul says in Romans 7:14, and which has been repeatedly mentioned to you.

This is the correct understanding of circumcision from the Torah:

Deuteronomy 10:12-16 KJV
12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
13 To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?
14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

And as already quoted to you in the other thread:

Deuteronomy 30:4-6 KJV
4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.
6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

And as already explained to you multiple times, Paul teaches this choice from the Torah, just as the Master himself teaches in the Gospel accounts in all his Testimony: for again, just as Mosheh admonishes the hearer and reader in that passage, choose life.

Paul teaches the above here:

Romans 2:28-29 ASV
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

But you still do not believe Paul even in this because the natural mind has concocted the idea that circumcision is purely physical and outward in the Torah and therefore needs to be canceled: and this your mind does for you because you neither understand nor believe the Torah and therefore neither understand the Testimony of the Messiah nor Paul. Paul isn't canceling or changing anything: there are two ways, one way is death, the other is life: one way is the natural, physical, and outward, while the correct and true way is supernal, spiritual, and inward: choose life in all your understanding of the scripture, all scripture, including the Torah. Allow the covenant to be renewed by the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts, and the writings of his apostles, while your heart and mind are being renewed at the same time in your walk with and in Messiah.

Circumcision is absolutely required to this day:

Romans 15:8-10 ASV
8 For I say that Christ hath been made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, that he might confirm the promises given unto the fathers,
9 and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, Therefore will I give praise unto thee among the Gentiles, And sing unto thy name.
10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.

Learn to rightly divide the scripture: learn the difference between when the scripture speaks of supernal, spiritual, and inward things, and when it speaks of physical, carnal, and outward things, and perhaps then you won't be so hasty to judge people and things you know nothing about. Do you suppose your heart was circumcised the day you first believed? Guess again, or better yet, begin the process of learning the truth about it from the scripture: it's a walk, in patient endurance and faithfulness.