Sabbath?

[from scratch]

The word new here is neos in the original. It means recently born, young, youthful. The word man is a supplied word used for clarification. The new man here is clearly a refurburished new man, not a completely new fleshand blood man. What is made new or renewed. The soul that was born dead. So is it a completely new or a renewed man? the word used here is not kainos but anakainōsis. Just a tad different.

Some persons see in the use of καινός in contrast with νέος a distinction based upon that which is novel and different in contrast with that which is young and recent. Though this distinction may be applicable to certain contexts and is more in accordance with classical usage, it is not possible to find in all occurrences of καινός and νέος this type of distinction.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.). New York: United Bible societies.

But it does not matter what I reputable source I quote your mind is made up to what the meaning is because you think it proves your point.

So you think my sources are not reputable. Based on what, your prefenence. Thanks.

Your previous presentation did not include the transliteration necessary for me to make any informed decision on. It appeared to me that you used part of a word dumping the greek prefix which changes the word.

I guess there may be a difference in the transcripts such as the poluted Westcott and Hort.

So what is your point? Is it that I am wrong? Is it what you want to believe? Is your mind made up? What is it that makes your souce without error?

Thanks for your presentation and your references. J P Louw is intereesting and could not find E A Nida.

 

[7steps]

So you think my sources are not reputable. Based on what, your prefenence. Thanks.

Your previous presentation did not include the transliteration necessary for me to make any informed decision on. It appeared to me that you used part of a word dumping the greek prefix which changes the word.

I guess there may be a difference in the transcripts such as the poluted Westcott and Hort.

So what is your point? Is it that I am wrong? Is it what you want to believe? Is your mind made up? What is it that makes your souce without error?

Thanks for your presentation and your references. J P Louw is intereesting and could not find E A Nida.

I did not say your source was not reputable again a straw man. In the point that their is only one way to take kainos yes you are wrong. In the interpretation of the scripture-it can be taken either way so it is arguable not definite. My mind is open and that is why I reaserched your point about Jer and Matt 28:26 and the corresponding scriptures. Even to the fact that they contain the word Kainos, but yes I think my mind is made up I believe their is allot of beauty in the law and it does not interfere with my knowledge that Yahshua is my Saviour and nothing presented has been a definitive change of that.
And you where the one that made it personal when you placed your remarks of "what word of new as in not old don't you understand?" It's funny how you can attack but when I write what I write with your words in it I am the one that is accusing you. All I have done is copy your tone. You like to make allot of assumptions form what you read and then accuse me. Like the question what is it that makes my source without error? Straw man reasoning I did not make that statement or assumption.
Or the statement you made -"So you think my sources are not reputable. Based on what, your preference." Again a straw man, I did not say it was. What made you wrong was your definitiveness and the condescending tone behind it. Which I copied back to you. But this is why I did not want to get into the discussion originally because it was obvious from your tone that you believed that your reasoning was superior and anything I said would not make a difference. You and some others here have this tone of superiority and you throw scriptures around and you add greek and hebrew to try to make it like a definite truth. Like an aha moment. Like you got us and that their is no other explanation but there is.

 

[Frogster]

I did not say anything about 613. If that is what you think the law is and what Paul is addressing then you are right. But this thinking is a byproduct of Pauline Doctrine to think that the Law is Rabbinical or the Messianic version, and it is not. But because of Pauline and Marcionic doctrine the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. Pauline and Marcionic created the notion that their was an Old and a New Testament so the majority of christianity does not concern itself in learning what the Torah can teach exept that it was to enslave. I have mentioned this previously but you only want to prove me wrong because it sounds wrong to you making assumptions.

Oh please, the law was one, other than if maybe a farming law did not apply to someone, show mw the division in the OT then?

Why this?

Leviticus 26:15
if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my rules, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant,

 

[Frogster]

I did not say anything about 613. If that is what you think the law is and what Paul is addressing then you are right. But this thinking is a byproduct of Pauline Doctrine to think that the Law is Rabbinical or the Messianic version, and it is not. But because of Pauline and Marcionic doctrine the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. Pauline and Marcionic created the notion that their was an Old and a New Testament so the majority of christianity does not concern itself in learning what the Torah can teach exept that it was to enslave. I have mentioned this previously but you only want to prove me wrong because it sounds wrong to you making assumptions.

Then why this, if the old cov was not all of the 613?



lawEx 24:3 Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the rules. [1] And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” 4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord. 6 And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”


More from Hebrews 9



18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”

 

[Frogster]

No. Misrepresenting what I say. If you freedom involves not having to love your neighbour and love God by action then it is definitely not the freedom Jesus gives you. If this is not the freedom you speak of then it cannot be freedom to not keep the 10 commandments because then it would be the same thing.



My church does not teach that at all. If one or two persons says that, this is their own opinion. What is important is what the bible teaches. For in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God you hold to your own tradition.

In the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, we read:

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea, (AD 336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday….
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her! —Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R., (1946), p. 50.

In Catholic Christian Instructed,

Q. Has the [Catholic] church power to make any alterations in the commandments of God?
A. ...Instead of the seventh day, and other festivals appointed by the old law, the church has prescribed the Sundays and holy days to be set apart for God’s worship; and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath. —Rt. Rev. Dr. Challoner, p. 211.

In An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine,

Q. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
A. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.
Q. How prove you that?
A. Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest [of the feasts] by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power. –Rev. Henry Tuberville, D.D. (R.C.), (1833), page 58.

In A Doctrinal Catechism,

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her. She could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority. –Rev. Stephen Keenan, (1851), p. 174.

Commandment of God or man? You decide.

Sorry, the sabbath was a law that gentiles were never under before, or after, unless u got scriprure to show otherwise?

How could that be a part of the abramic cov, if the sabbath law was well after, the Abe cov, that we are in?

When was if given to the jews, Abe or Moses?

 

[Frogster]

I did not say your source was not reputable again a straw man. In the point that their is only one way to take kainos yes you are wrong. In the interpretation of the scripture-it can be taken either way so it is arguable not definite. My mind is open and that is why I reaserched your point about Jer and Matt 28:26 and the corresponding scriptures. Even to the fact that they contain the word Kainos, but yes I think my mind is made up I believe their is allot of beauty in the law and it does not interfere with my knowledge that Yahshua is my Saviour and nothing presented has been a definitive change of that.
And you where the one that made it personal when you placed your remarks of "what word of new as in not old don't you understand?" It's funny how you can attack but when I write what I write with your words in it I am the one that is accusing you. All I have done is copy your tone. You like to make allot of assumptions form what you read and then accuse me. Like the question what is it that makes my source without error? Straw man reasoning I did not make that statement or assumption.
Or the statement you made -"So you think my sources are not reputable. Based on what, your preference." Again a straw man, I did not say it was. What made you wrong was your definitiveness and the condescending tone behind it. Which I copied back to you. But this is why I did not want to get into the discussion originally because it was obvious from your tone that you believed that your reasoning was superior and anything I said would not make a difference. You and some others here have this tone of superiority and you throw scriptures around and you add greek and hebrew to try to make it like a definite truth. Like an aha moment. Like you got us and that their is no other explanation but there is.

Do you realize that in the places where scripture talks of Abe, in the NT, it is clearly to show that that cov is not of Moses, or for the Jews only?


Thanks, I am trying to establish a foundation here, so we can dicuss the Abrahamic cov, that Peter also said we are in, not just Paul.

Acts 3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’

I will be happy to discuss this in detail, instead of going on and on, using who says what "new means", then we can get into the issue at hand.

Thanks! frogster.

 

[7steps]

Then why this, if the old cov was not all of the 613?



lawEx 24:3 Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the rules. [1] And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” 4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord. 6 And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”


More from Hebrews 9



18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”

think that the Law is Rabbinical or the Messianic version

 

[7steps]

Do you realize that in the places where scripture talks of Abe, in the NT, it is clearly to show that that cov is not of Moses, or for the Jews only?


Thanks, I am trying to establish a foundation here, so we can dicuss the Abrahamic cov, that Peter also said we are in, not just Paul.

Acts 3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’

I will be happy to discuss this in detail, instead of going on and on, using who says what "new means", then we can get into the issue at hand.

Thanks! frogster.

Yes I do realize that. Do you realize I already answered that. I guess my answer was not to your satisfaction.

 

[Frogster]

think that the Law is Rabbinical or the Messianic version

Biblical, lets not avoid the issue, no going on and on..most know what the text means, all the commands, No?

Moses was Moses.

Now, the post proves the law, and ALL the commands were part of the old cov, no?

 

[visionary]

So how do you prove God never changes?

 

[Frogster]

Do you realize I already answered that. I guess my answer was not to your satisfaction.

Show mercy, answer again then, does scripture clearly show, that the Abrahmic cov, that came later, was for gentiles also, and it shows a clear distinction, of the Mosaic cov, that Gentiles were in no way a part of?

 

[Frogster]

So how do you prove God never changes?

The cov changed, besides, an argument could be made, that he now does indeed, justify the ungodly, though that is for another thread.

 

[7steps]

Show mercy, answer again then, does scripture clearly show, that the Abrahmic cov, that came later, was for gentiles also, and it shows a clear distinction, of the Mosaic cov, that Gentiles were in no way a part of?

#278 where you then answered me that you were the one saying that the gentiles where included when they where always included if they chose to. The difference now is that Israel as a nation committed adultery and rejected Yhashua so the majority of Yahudim are non israelites. The law was a metaphor and the Israelites where the witnesses. We are still grafted in by the branch. We are not a different tree. Look closely and you will see that the the metaphors in the rituals of the Torah included YHWH's whole plan those that chose him and those that he chose. There is not 613 that was made up by the Rambam. A good source for you would be a book by Ken Power's called The Owners Manual (The Owner's Manual - 1 - Instructions and Signs)

 

[7steps]

Biblical, lets not avoid the issue, no going on and on..most know what the text means, all the commands, No?

Moses was Moses.

Now, the post proves the law, and ALL the commands were part of the old cov, no?

No it is inaccurate to say 613 when that is man made not Torah. There is no old covenant their is the covenant and the renewed covenant. The covenant has to be there and then you add a little and make it better, then when Yahshua comes for the final time it will be perfect.

 

[Frogster]

#278 where you then answered me that you were the one saying that the gentiles where included when they where always included if they chose to. The difference now is that Israel as a nation committed adultery and rejected Yhashua so the majority of Yahudim are non israelites. The law was a metaphor and the Israelites where the witnesses. We are still grafted in by the branch. We are not a different tree. Look closely and you will see that the the metaphors in the rituals of the Torah included YHWH's whole plan those that chose him and those that he chose. There is not 613 that was made up by the Rambam. A good source for you would be a book by Ken Power's called The Owners Manual (The Owner's Manual - 1 - Instructions and Signs)

No no, it has to be Abraham, like Peter and Paul said, or why this?

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

The 613.

The conundrum is obvious, you can't graft gentiles into moses.

 

[Frogster]

No it is inaccurate to say 613 when that is man made not Torah. There is no old covenant their is the covenant and the renewed covenant. The covenant has to be there and then you add a little and make it better, then when Yahshua comes for the final time it will be perfect.

Really, then why this, right out of the Torah?

Leviticus 26:15
if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my rules, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant,

 

[7steps]

Really, then why this, right out of the Torah?

Leviticus 26:15
if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my rules, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant,

So that it is not taken as a sarcastic remark if I took that scripture the way that you are interpreting it I would have to say. Wow. That God of the Torah is an evil god He set them up for failure. He kenew they couldn't do it. They were doomed before they started. David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Daniel, Isaiah, Joshua where all doomed form the start. If I was Moses I would have said ( and I am not been sarcastic and I hope the mods don't take it that way -this is really me as Moses.)
wait a second, so you made a covenant with Abraham and now you want to make this covenant with me.
But wait I have to do what?
And if I don't do it what will happen to all these people?

Oh no,no,no. I will just continue with the one you gave Abe over there. You won't set my people free if I don't do it? That's not right. And you are going to give Abe's covenant to all the gentiles too. Hey what gives why do we get the raw end of the deal. If we don't accept it you won't protect us?
I think this is extortion.
So what choice do I have?
None.
Can't I be a gentile, they have it easy?
Come on God can't you give us a break here we where just enslaved for all this time with the Egyptians now you are enslaving us. With all these rules I will stay with the Egyptians at least that is temporary.

Your presupposing question fails to take into account that there was no two covenants. If that is what you are getting from Galatians I believe it is wrong. The scripture you quoted right from the Torah as you put it Lev 26:15 actually backs up my point.

7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
9 the fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether.


The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ps 19:7–9). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

So asking me the presupposing question again and again which covenant won't make me answer any different. God made one covenant, added clarification and repetition and then renewed it because of the adulterous relationship his people had and will in the future perfect it and write it in our hearts. You got me on that conundrum (that was probably sarcastic sorry it was just to follow in the spirit of your answer). I tough you would know that Yahshua is the one considered the branch. He was Jewish you know.

The covenant has to be there and then you add a little and make it better (expand it you might say to include others because becoming part of the Jewish nation at the time would have done them no good because they where not following god and God had divorced them so in order to be part of gods covenant and help us be part of his people we had to be grafted thoughu Yahshua since he divorced them and there was no other way.) But God know this was going to happen and he knew that there was going to be another era of his people. He did not throw the old out. Why would he it was a metaphor prophetic for all time. So god did not change the covenant man did. he provided a way for those that wanted to be part of his people. then when Yahshua comes for the final time it will be perfect. When we will camp with him for eternity.

 

[from scratch]

I did not say your source was not reputable again a straw man. In the point that their is only one way to take kainos yes you are wrong. In the interpretation of the scripture-it can be taken either way so it is arguable not definite. My mind is open and that is why I reaserched your point about Jer and Matt 28:26 and the corresponding scriptures. Even to the fact that they contain the word Kainos, but yes I think my mind is made up I believe their is allot of beauty in the law and it does not interfere with my knowledge that Yahshua is my Saviour and nothing presented has been a definitive change of that.
And you where the one that made it personal when you placed your remarks of "what word of new as in not old don't you understand?" It's funny how you can attack but when I write what I write with your words in it I am the one that is accusing you. All I have done is copy your tone. You like to make allot of assumptions form what you read and then accuse me. Like the question what is it that makes my source without error? Straw man reasoning I did not make that statement or assumption.
Or the statement you made -"So you think my sources are not reputable. Based on what, your preference." Again a straw man, I did not say it was. What made you wrong was your definitiveness and the condescending tone behind it. Which I copied back to you. But this is why I did not want to get into the discussion originally because it was obvious from your tone that you believed that your reasoning was superior and anything I said would not make a difference. You and some others here have this tone of superiority and you throw scriptures around and you add greek and hebrew to try to make it like a definite truth. Like an aha moment. Like you got us and that their is no other explanation but there is.

Ok, so educate me. Jeremiah uses the word chadash which can be pronounded two different ways like read, read and red. Spelled alike or sound alike, how do you determine the difference?

I offered as back for my idea the next verse which says not like. How can it be renewed if it is not like the previous one? You offered nothing but a literary word analysis and some off topic verses. So far in this thread all I have gotten is discriptions of movement. How does that change the law? ie the sabbath - the focus of the thread. I am accused of being anomos with no law and no restraint. Which I usually counter with Gal 5:16-24. I get no response on this reference. Why? I have also mentioned I Tim 1:9, 10 to show who the law is written for. How can you dispute this? What need is there to tell someone who does not murder that it is wrong, if they have the Spirit of Christ in them? Same goes for the other behaviors. The sabbath is different. Why has not God impressed me to keep the sabbath? I conformed by my will as Goid placed in my heart to accept His gift of life (redemption). Why has God not given me a desire to keep the Sabbath? You have to come to the conclusion that I am not redeemed/saved or else God would do this work in me.

I have talked to many folks and find a very interesting fact. They don't believe the way of their new profession when changing churches. I have a friend who was a Baptist, then an AoG who is currently SDA. The interesting thing is that they never observed the sabbath before coming in contact with the SDA. They say that God is the One responsible for the change of faith. I say what!! They must have never read their Bible before. The SDA are the ones who presented the idea to them. Now it is a fact that the ten commandments are taught in both of their previous churches. So one can not say they weren't exposed to the Sabbath. I ask again who convinced them to change their behavior - God or the SDA organization.

If Paul was head of the class - that is one of his peers exceeded his standing Phil 3:4-6 - Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. Why did he tell us to throw out the law? Gal 4:30. Why did he say let no one judge you for which holy days you keep if you keep them Col 2:16-18. Why did he say this? But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?10Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Now let us talk about new covenant some more. Not only do we have Jesus testimony about the new (kainos) covenant in Mat 26:28, Mk 14:24 and LK 22:20 all use the same word which is defined as:
1) new
a) as respects form
1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
b) as respects substance
1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of
Paul uses the same word in his discription of the new testament/covenant in II Cor 3:6 and proceeds to describe the old covenantin the very next verse. It can not be a renewed covenant. The law only condemns. It does not give life or provide redemption. Sacrifice only put off punishment for a year. Yet Jesus' sacrifice not only forgave sin permanently it also changed the heart which the law could not do. Romans 8:3 - For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

How open is your mind?

 

[Frogster]

So that it is not taken as a sarcastic remark if I took that scripture the way that you are interpreting it I would have to say. Wow. That God of the Torah is an evil god He set them up for failure. He kenew they couldn't do it. They were doomed before they started. David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Daniel, Isaiah, Joshua where all doomed form the start. If I was Moses I would have said ( and I am not been sarcastic and I hope the mods don't take it that way -this is really me as Moses.)
wait a second, so you made a covenant with Abraham and now you want to make this covenant with me.
But wait I have to do what?
And if I don't do it what will happen to all these people?

Oh no,no,no. I will just continue with the one you gave Abe over there. You won't set my people free if I don't do it? That's not right. And you are going to give Abe's covenant to all the gentiles too. Hey what gives why do we get the raw end of the deal. If we don't accept it you won't protect us?
I think this is extortion.
So what choice do I have?
None.
Can't I be a gentile, they have it easy?
Come on God can't you give us a break here we where just enslaved for all this time with the Egyptians now you are enslaving us. With all these rules I will stay with the Egyptians at least that is temporary.

Your presupposing question fails to take into account that there was no two covenants. If that is what you are getting from Galatians I believe it is wrong. The scripture you quoted right from the Torah as you put it Lev 26:15 actually backs up my point.

7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
9 the fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether.


The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ps 19:7–9). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

So asking me the presupposing question again and again which covenant won't make me answer any different. God made one covenant, added clarification and repetition and then renewed it because of the adulterous relationship his people had and will in the future perfect it and write it in our hearts. And I tough you would know that Yahshua is the one considered the branch. He was Jewish you know.

David broke it big time. Why do you avoid a clear conversation about the fact, that scripture is clear, that they were different, and gentiles are in the Abe cov too?

If there were not 2 covs, are you saying Gentiles had to become under Moses?

If God did not know they would break it, why then, was there a scrificial system?

Why did Israel stray if it was so wonderful?

Bottom line question. Do gentiles enter the mosaic cov, or the Abrahamic cov?

14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

 

[from scratch]

So that it is not taken as a sarcastic remark if I took that scripture the way that you are interpreting it I would have to say. Wow. That God of the Torah is an evil god He set them up for failure. He kenew they couldn't do it. They were doomed before they started. David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Daniel, Isaiah, Joshua where all doomed form the start. If I was Moses I would have said ( and I am not been sarcastic and I hope the mods don't take it that way -this is really me as Moses.)
wait a second, so you made a covenant with Abraham and now you want to make this covenant with me.
But wait I have to do what?
And if I don't do it what will happen to all these people?

Oh no,no,no. I will just continue with the one you gave Abe over there. You won't set my people free if I don't do it? That's not right. And you are going to give Abe's covenant to all the gentiles too. Hey what gives why do we get the raw end of the deal. If we don't accept it you won't protect us?
I think this is extortion.
So what choice do I have?
None.
Can't I be a gentile, they have it easy?
Come on God can't you give us a break here we where just enslaved for all this time with the Egyptians now you are enslaving us. With all these rules I will stay with the Egyptians at least that is temporary.

Your presupposing question fails to take into account that there was no two covenants. If that is what you are getting from Galatians I believe it is wrong. The scripture you quoted right from the Torah as you put it Lev 26:15 actually backs up my point.

7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
9 the fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether.


The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ps 19:7–9). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

So asking me the presupposing question again and again which covenant won't make me answer any different. God made one covenant, added clarification and repetition and then renewed it because of the adulterous relationship his people had and will in the future perfect it and write it in our hearts. You got me on that conundrum (that was probably sarcastic sorry it was just to follow in the spirit of your answer). I tough you would know that Yahshua is the one considered the branch. He was Jewish you know.

The covenant has to be there and then you add a little and make it better (expand it you might say to include others because becoming part of the Jewish nation at the time would have done them no good because they where not following god and God had divorced them so in order to be part of gods covenant and help us be part of his people we had to be grafted thoughu Yahshua since he divorced them and there was no other way.) So god did not change the covenant man did he provided a way for those that wanted to be part of his people.) then when Yahshua comes for the final time it will be perfect.

There are 7 major covenants 7Steps. Here they are:

1. Noahic - Gen 9:8-17 Royal Grant
2. Abrahamic A - Gen 15:9-21 Royal Grant
3. Abrahamic B - Gen 17 Suzerian-vassal
4. Sinaitic - Ex 19-24 Suzerian-vassal
5. Phinehas - Num 25:10-13 Royal Grant
6. Davidic - II Sam 7:5-16 Royal Grant
7. New - Jer 331:31-34 Royal Grant

We are graft into Jesus and not Israel. Christian never become a part of Israel, physical or spiritual. There is no Jew nor Gentile in Christ Jesus per Gal 3:28.

So where is God obligate to be fair. I sure don't want Him to be fair. I want that free gift I do not deserve. The law says I deserve death also known as hell reserved for the devil and his minions.

Yep Romans 11:32 is very unfair, while it also reaches out to them with the same offer which makes it very fair.