If you think that is what Paul was doing in Ephesians 2:14-16, then according to God, you should regard him as being a false prophet, but the reality is that Paul was not a enemy of God, so that is not what he was doing.
The Decalogue was not made obsolete and remains in the NT (Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13:8-10).
Because the priesthood was changed, the law had to be changed (Heb 7:12).
The Law was established by the priesthood, when the priesthood changes, the Law changes.
Since the priesthood and the Law go together, Christ being made the new priesthood, also makes him the new Lawgiver,
transferring to him the office of Aaron and Moses.
In Matthew 22:36-40, all of the Law and the Prophets hangs on the greatest two commandments, not just the Decalogue, so it is all connected and all of it remains in the NT. It the way to testify about God's nature were to change when the New Covenant was made, then God's nature would not be eternal, but it is eternal, therefore Hebrews 7:12 is not speaking about a change of the law in regard to its content such as it now becoming righteous to commit idolatry or sinful to help the poor, but rather in context it is speaking about a change in the priesthood, which would also require a change in law in regard to its administration. The same God who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus, who spent his ministry teaching how to obey it by word and by example, so Jesus did not have any disagreement about which laws we should follow.
It makes sense just the way it is written, doesn't need any massaging by anyone.
I agree that what was written makes sense, but what does make sense is interpreting what was written as referring to God's law. Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such as the Law of God, the law of sin, and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law he was speaking about, and if you just assume that he was only speaking about the Law of God, then you are guaranteed to misunderstand what he was saying. For example, in Romans 3:27, he contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, and in Romans 7:25, he contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin. So rather then just assuming this passage is referring to the Law of God, you need to give reasons to justify that interpretation and reasons why you reject that reasons that I gave for why this passage couldn't be referring to the Law of God.
He said he came to fulfill it, which he did regarding the sacrifices and the cleansings of all the various defilements.
Being fulfilled/completed, they are now all abolished (Eph 2:14-16).
Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast to saying that he came not to abolish it, so you shouldn't interpret that as meaning essentially the same thing. Rather, Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law by teaching us how to correctly obey it by word and by example. In Galatian 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something that only Jesus did. Likewise, in Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, yet you don't consistently interpret that as abolishing it. Saying that Jesus abolished the law is calling him a liar and disregarding his warning. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish the law, but rather our faith upholds yet, yet your faith does not uphold it, and you are trying to say it had been abolished.
Except that the language clearly states that they are. You get to decide whether to believe
the revelation Paul received from Jesus personally, in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5)
Except that you are clearly assuming that it is referring to God's law without giving any sort of justification while ignoring reasons for why it couldn't be referring to God's law. While I believe the revelation Paul received, I also believe that Paul never spoke against obeying any of God's laws, but if you think that Paul did that, then that would mean that Paul was a false prophet who did not receive a revelation from Jesus.
So the sacrifices were a mistake, or are they still offering animal sacrifices over at your church?
I specifically said that God did not make any mistakes when He gave the law.
Does the text state that was God's purpose?
There is nothing in the Bible that states that God's law was given for the purpose of being a dividing wall of hostility, yet this verse is describing a law that is a dividing wall of hostility, which means that should interpret this verse as referring to a law that is a dividing wall of hostility rather than to God's law.
Paul makes it clear that no one is justified by his works, no one is declared "not guilty," nor made right with God's justice, by his works,
includng Abraham (Ro 4:2-8). Works is apart from justification (Ro 3:21, 28).
In James, 2:21, Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac, so either he was contradicting Paul in Romans 3:21-4:8 or they are not speaking the same type of works. In Romans 4:4-5, Paul specifically denied that our justification is something that can be earned as though it were a wage, but that is not denying that works play a necessary role in our salvation for some other purpose such as faith because he said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified. So we are justified by faith alone apart from works insofar as there are no works that we can do to earn our salvation, but faith is never alone insofar as the same faith by which we are justified is also expressed as works. If works played no role in our justification, then our faith would abolish our need to obey God's law, however, in Romans 3:31, Paul did not want us to draw that conclusion, but rather he concluded that our faith upholds God's law. In James 2:21-22, he was speaking about Abraham being justified by his works insofar as they were an expression of His faith, but he was not speaking about Abraham earning his justification by his works.
