What's up with Torah-observance?

[YHWH's Lion]

Must we be circumcised?

Must we be circumcised to be saved - NO. Should we study all of God's word and glean gems out of it and apply them to our lives ? YES. If we don't what will happen? at best nothing, if we do apply them what will happen? at best we will receive a blessing, as the scripture says.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

Not so, as I proved earlier and you never refuted. Jews who became Christians walked in a mixture of law and grace out of their "zealous of the law".

GAL 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

They did not walk in the new covenant. They practiced the gospel of 'the circumcision' which Peter preached out of "fear of the circumcision party", and Paul preached a gospel of 'the uncircumcision' disavowing the Peter's circumcision gospel to his face.

GAL 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.


For one thing, Christ was still under the law. The New covenant couldn't even start until after he died to fulfil the Old. Did Paul keep them?

Yes paul did keep them. And after Jesus died Pig was still a Pig.

 

[redleghunter]

Must we be circumcised to be saved - NO. Should we study all of God's word and glean gems out of it and apply them to our lives ? YES. If we don't what will happen? at best nothing, if we do apply them what will happen? at best we will receive a blessing, as the scripture says.

I think my last post to @Soyeong is in harmony with your comments above.

 

[2 know him]

But the Word of YHWH cannot contradict.

You said it... Absolute proof the bible is not God's word, as it absolutely does have contradictions in it:

Paul says: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good..." (Romans 13:1-4)

Jesus stated: "But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony "against" them". (Matthew 10:17,18)

Jesus clearly said that his followers where to be brought up before Kings and Governors for a testimony "against" them, not for them, and yet Paul speaks against Jesus' words, saying: "governments are ministers of God"; who is right: Jesus or Paul?

"But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Romans 13:4)

Jesus states that if you don't forgive men their sins, God won't forgive you yours; yet Paul gives men an exemption to kill others, against Jesus teachings on forgiveness.

Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Still think there are no contradictions in the bible?

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Isn't forgiveness a work? Yes, it is. Jesus stated: if you don't forgive, you won't be forgiven.
Are we saved by our works? Absolutely, according to Jesus we are, unless you don't believe Jesus.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." (Matthew 16:27)

Paul stated: "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some". (1Corinthians 9:22) Can you imagine Jesus making the statement above? No, Jesus called men to repent, to turn from their sins to do good. It becomes clear why Paul made some of the statements he did, when one considers his words above.

 

[2 know him]

The reason you have the bible today is because the Catholic church, during the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., put manuscripts, that these rulers deemed useful, into a book, and what better way to secure obedience to dictators, than to promote Paul's teachings: which condone governors and their governments as ministers of God. Constantine created the council of Nicaea, which gave us the Apostles Creed, a document that seeks to establish ideology as a virtue, similarly to Paul's writings, instead of teaching men to follow the precepts of Christ. Not long after the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Carthage created the bible: which contains a large contingency of Paul's writings. (All this can be easily researched on the Internet.)

In all fairness to Paul, he did not have the benefits of having heard Jesus and his teachings first hand, and neither were Jesus' words written in a book that he could have referred, to have the benefits that you and I enjoy today. But none the less, people incorporated Paul's teachings into a book that they produced and then they went on to arrogantly proclaim it as the word of God himself. Most of what we have in the new testament is the chronicled words of Paul's writings, a person who refused to take instruction from people that had actually walked with Jesus, and the bible goes on to show how that lack of instruction lead him to all sorts of wayward teachings, against what Christ taught, as he expressed his own beliefs of what he believed Jesus represented with his own doctrines which he sought to enforce. In the end the bible exposes how Paul was rejected by his followers, and the book of revelations commends those same people for rejecting Paul.

The bible is not God's word, it is the creation of men from the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., who sought to use Paul and his teachings to consolidate their control over a society that had been largely influenced by people that where actually committed to the teachings of Christ. Eventually people were forced to accept the tenants of faith that Constantine ,a Ruler of part of Rome's Empire, and his council promoted upon the pains of death: if men refused to accept them. Today, while the physical threat is no longer tolerated or present, men continue to make the claim that one will experience eternal damnation if they refuse to acknowledge the bible as being inspired by God Himself.

The Catholic church was an evil empire that was a consortium of Roman Rulers, in the early days, who used the Paul's writings to try and secure obedience to their Rule. Once the bible, and Paul's writings in it, was hailed as inspired of God, it meant that any who opposed its writings, opposed God Himself and history bares witness as to what evil acts the Roman Catholic church did to men who refused to subordinate to its authority.

Still believe the bible was/is inspired by God?

 

[2 know him]

Proof the early Church forsook Paul.

Paul to Timothy: "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me".
(2Timothy 1:15)

So who was wrong: Asia for forsaking Paul, or Paul, which caused all of Asia to forsake him?

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia" (Revelations 1:4). And to the first of the churches in Revelations Christ states: "I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars" (Revelations 2:2) In light of the fact that all Asia forsook Paul, why weren't the churches of Asia rebuked? Instead, it becomes clear that John, or should we say Christ, is referencing Paul: when we scrutinized Paul's words in 2 Timothy 1:15 with Revelations 2:2.

Some will try and tell you that Revelations was written between 90-110 A.D. to a different church, but the book of Revelations clearly refutes those claims: "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." (Revelations 17:9,10) John wrote revelations under Nero, the 6th Emperor of Rome, the city on 7 hills; Paul was put to death by Nero in 67 A.D.: 2 years before Nero took his own life.

According to Revelations 11:1,2 John wrote Revelations in the Spring of 67 A.D. 42 months before the destruction of the Second Temple:
Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

The temple in heaven will never be tread under foot by the Gentiles and if this was a reference to a third temple, how could John have measured it and if it was in a vision of future events, surely John would have mention that the temple was rebuilt, seeing the second one would have just been destroyed. In any case, Revelations 17:10 clearly confirms that John wrote the book during the reign of the 6th Emperor of Rome and he Reigned while the temple was still erected. So it is absolutely clear that John wrote to the same followers who rejected Paul and they were not reprimanded for it, on the contrary, if anything they were commended for it. And BTW, 2 of the churches walked perfect before God, but how could that be, if they must accept Paul's words as being infallible: as is proclaimed of his words today.

 

[Hillsage]

Yes paul did keep them. And after Jesus died Pig was still a Pig.

AGAIN, you've not refuted the scripture in my post. And your opinion isn't good enough either, so please provide scripture for your opinion concerning Paul 'keeping them'. And your Pig quote means what concerning my post?

And you're welcome, since you forgot to admit your complete error concerning Jesus being under the law until He died.

 

[Soyeong]

Hebrews 10:

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

"Sacrifice and offering You have not desired , But a body You have prepared for Me ; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure . "Then I said , 'Behold , I have come (I n the scroll of the book it is written of Me ) To do Your will , O God .'"

After saying above, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired , nor have You taken pleasure in them " (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, "Behold , I have come to do Your will ."

He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:5-10 NASB
http://bible.com/100/heb.10.5-10.NASB

Isaiah 1:


Hear the word of the Lord , You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the instruction of our God, You people of Gomorrah.

"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the Lord . "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats. "When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?

"Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies- I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. "I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them.

"So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.

"Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.

Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the Lord , "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; "But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword." Truly, the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Isaiah 1:10-20 NASB
http://bible.com/100/isa.1.10-20.NASB

This is not an instance of God commanding something and then changing His mind or of God commanding His law to cease. He would not have commanded the Israelites to perform sacrifices if He didn't want them. The word for "offering" literally means "to draw close", so if someone were to make an offering without drawing close to God by faith, then they would be completely missing the point, which is what the Israelites were doing. The goal of making offerings was not to slaughter animals, but that was what they were making it about. God consistently criticized His people for honoring Him with their mouths while their hearts were far from him (Isaiah 29:13, Mark 7:6-13), but if you were to take that and say that God doesn't want people to honor Him by obeying His commands, then you would likewise be missing the point.

On the Gentile circumcision you should know in order to observe the Passover, a Gentile must be circumcised. That may be the reason some of the Judean believes were adamant about Gentiles being circumcised for Christ is our Passover.

We must obey God rather than man, so if you want argue that God requires all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to keep Passover, then you should obey God instead of the Jerusalem Council. However, the Bible specifies that a Gentile can not eat of the Passover lamb without being circumcised, so I think that a Gentile can and should keep the other parts of Passover without eating of the lamb. That would be a legitimate reason for a Gentile to choose to become circumcised. Paul was not against circumcision in general, but he was against someone getting circumcised in order to be saved and against someone having special status in regard to being saved because they were circumcised.

Yet we see the reference in Genesis and Hebrews to Abraham justified before God before his circumcision. The circumcision in that covenant was a seal. What was the seal of the New covenant? Christian Baptism.

Circumcision was never commanded by God in order for someone to be saved, so that is clearly a man-made tradition that they were speaking against.

There seems to be a theme. Jesus Christ and His apostles clearly stated the Great Commandment.

Is morality only in regard to man's relationship with man and not man's relationship with God? If so, then the first four of the Ten Commandments would not be moral commands, including the command against idolatry. However, if morality is also in regard to man's relationship with God, then all of God's commands are inherently moral commands, and indeed God is the basis for morality. The Bible does not differentiate between moral and non-moral commands of God, but rather disobedience to any of His commands is immoral.

They asked Jesus what the greatest command was, not which command should be obeying to the exclusion of the other commands. The greatest two commands are the greatest two commands because they are essentially what the law is about. All of God's laws can be divided into commands about how to love God and how to love your neighbor. For instance, the first four of the Ten Commandments are about how to love God and the last six are about how to love your neighbor. Jesus said that the rest of the laws hang on the greatest two because they are examples for how to obey the greatest two. The law is about how to love and the rest of the commands are commentary for how to do that.

Matthew 5 went into quite some detail on our moral relationships with God and with fellow man.

Where are the affirmations of purity laws, heave offerings, festival keeping? Not there. You have to operate from the implied and not specified. Operating from an implied 'silence' is exactly what cult leaders do with Holy Scriptures. For example Herbert Armstrong, the Mormons, you name them.

In Matthew 5, Jesus was explaining how to understand and obey the law. He specifically said that not the least part of the law would disappear until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished, which is either saying that the least part will never pass away or is referring to end times. Jesus also warned those who would relax the least of the laws and teach others to do the same. So there is no need to rely on implication when it is clearly stated to still be in effect (heaven and earth as still here and not all has been accomplished), but there is plenty of solid implication.

The law is what gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), without the law we wouldn't even know what sin was (Romans 7:7), sin is defined as lawlessness (1 John 3:4), and we are told not to sin (Romans 6:15), so it is a straightforward inference inference that we are told not to break the law, which includes keeping the festivals. The law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (Romans 7:12) and as part of the New Covenant we are also told to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10). Furthermore, the New Covenant involves God writing His law on our hearts so that we will obey it (Jeremiah 31:33). Jesus gave us a perfect example of how to obey the law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to follow his commands and walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6), and to become imitations of him (1 Corinthians 11:1). We can not be his disciples if we refuse to follow his example.

613 laws I believe in Torah. How many can a post Temple Jew or Christian observe? What of the civil laws? We are not a theocracy, yet those Israelite theocratic laws sure do instruct and tutor us on the Mind of God and His Holy standard.

Festivals? All the Spring festivals are fulfilled. What Christian does not each day celebrate in their deliverance from the second death and rejoice in the first fruits of the Resurrection? Who does not step out each day and rejoice in the Holy Spirit given gifts and do the works God sets forth for us as the first Spirit filled believers did on Pentecost? Living each day as we are being poured out as a drink offering?

Yes the Fall festivals are yet to be fulfilled. What Christian does not rejoice in knowing Messiah will return in Glory and Power with Justice; to bring those of His sheep to mansions in His Kingdom? We watch each day, in hope more will become disciples of Messiah and join us in His Kingdom. Thus our mission of the Great Commission. Yes the King is coming again!

If you wish to celebrate old covenant observances, you are at liberty to do so. I stated above that such observances are daily and in the heart, as Christ told us "the Kingdom of is within you."

Again, the Bible makes no distinction between civil and non-civil laws, but rather sin is disobedience to any of God's laws. To fulfill the festivals means to bring full meaning to them. For instance, as our Passover Lamb, Jesus brought full meaning to Passover, so he made it all the more important to keep now that we fully understand it. The Festivals are rich with teachings about the Messiah and they are a joy to keep, so is only to your extreme detriment to not keep them in accordance with Jesus and Paul's example. Moses could not have used daily observances to lamely excuse his sin in disobedience to God's commands and neither can we.

 

[True Science]

Christ's Kingdom is not a theocracy? I beg to differ.

 

[Tree of Life]

Tell me why or why not you believe it.

Please say what you mean by Torah Observance.

 

[nomadictheist]

Proof the early Church forsook Paul.

Paul to Timothy: "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me".
(2Timothy 1:15)

So who was wrong: Asia for forsaking Paul, or Paul, which caused all of Asia to forsake him?

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia" (Revelations 1:4). And to the first of the churches in Revelations Christ states: "I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars" (Revelations 2:2) In light of the fact that all Asia forsook Paul, why weren't the churches of Asia rebuked? Instead, it becomes clear that John, or should we say Christ, is referencing Paul: when we scrutinized Paul's words in 2 Timothy 1:15 with Revelations 2:2.

Some will try and tell you that Revelations was written between 90-110 A.D. to a different church, but the book of Revelations clearly refutes those claims: "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." (Revelations 17:9,10) John wrote revelations under Nero, the 6th Emperor of Rome, the city on 7 hills; Paul was put to death by Nero in 67 A.D.: 2 years before Nero took his own life.

According to Revelations 11:1,2 John wrote Revelations in the Spring of 67 A.D. 42 months before the destruction of the Second Temple:
Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

The temple in heaven will never be tread under foot by the Gentiles and if this was a reference to a third temple, how could John have measured it and if it was in a vision of future events, surely John would have mention that the temple was rebuilt, seeing the second one would have just been destroyed. In any case, Revelations 17:10 clearly confirms that John wrote the book during the reign of the 6th Emperor of Rome and he Reigned while the temple was still erected. So it is absolutely clear that John wrote to the same followers who rejected Paul and they were not reprimanded for it, on the contrary, if anything they were commended for it. And BTW, 2 of the churches walked perfect before God, but how could that be, if they must accept Paul's words as being infallible: as is proclaimed of his words today.

We've been over this ad nauseam in other threads, but you will find that the verse in Revelation doesn't actually specifically speak of Paul. Additionally, it says "those who say they are apostles" not "the one who says he is an apostle..." So this means that there were many false apostles at that time, which, of course, is not to be wondered at.

But if you want to see how Paul conducted himself in Ephesus, read Acts 19. Paul was not rejected by the church in Ephesus, but by the worshipers of Diana. To the contrary, Paul was the one who laid hands on the believers in Ephesus so that they received the Spirit.

 

[True Science]

It is stupid to think that none of the apostles and Yeshua wouldn't have outed Paul by name. They did so with other heretics. The 12 Apostles would have had more credibility with the churches, many of which were not even founded by Paul, because of them knowing Yeshua in the flesh and living with him for years. They would have had big influence. There was no reason for them to fear Paul overturning their work that easily in that time when they were alive, or even later. They would have easily called Paul out as a fraud. It is stupid. You have no books by the Apostles doing this. Yet there are various warnings even mentioning people by name but no warning of Paul.

 

[True Science]

People turned away from Paul because he was arresed in Roman custody and they were afraid of him because they were afraid of getting caught too. That is the context of his letter and it mentions that it was the time when he was in prision and the Lord stoood by him, which happens in Acts. It has ntohing to do with people rejecting Paul as a heretic, NOTHING.

 

[True Science]

At first glance people might think the Paul haters are really clever and got something, but deeper unbiased study one will come to find that they are quite simple in the brain and have nothign but take all kinds of things out of context and much of their proof is nothing but mystical stuff.

 

[Noxot]

Tell me why or why not you believe it.

no I do not. yes I do. it just depends if you speak of the flesh or the spirit.

 

[Shempster]

God tells us over and over about how we are obligated to observe the law and not break it.
The #1 problem with this is that all the time God really meant that He wants us to always observe the NEW LAW...the one Jesus set. The one that says always love God with all your heart mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.
We must obey this law or face total failure.
As far as Torah?..Read what Paul says.

 

[Vicomte13]

Violating God's dietary laws is also an affront to His character and is just as much a sin today as it was a sin back then.

For Jews, perhaps. The Mosaic law was not given in the abstract to the world. It was part of a covenant, a contract, whose terms were IF you particular people here and your lineal biological descendants (you Hebrews, specifically, not everybody in the world), obey me in all of these things, then you shall have your secure farms in the land of Canaan. But if you don't, I will drive you out and torment you to the end of the world.

All of those laws were for those people under that contract. Your name tells me you're Korean - and your people were never part of that contract, or under its terms.

You can't become part of the contract by following some of those laws (you don't follow them all).

 

[Vicomte13]

So as a Gentile is it OK to steal, how about commit adultery? how about kidnapping? should i go on?

Those all violate the commandments of Jesus. The Gentiles were never, ever under the Ten Commandments before or After Jesus. Those were part of a contract that was EXCLUSIVELY between Hebrews and YHWH.

Christ made a NEW contract, with all who would follow. He gave a clear set of moral laws that was altogether more embracing than the law of Sinai, because rendered very simply.

And he didn't give the judgments to the judges, or the Urim and Thummim. His law is simpler and really quite different.

 

[Vicomte13]

If we don't what will happen? at best nothing, if we do apply them what will happen? at best we will receive a blessing, as the scripture says.

And at worst we will damn ourselves to hell for burning witches at the stake because, in the land of Israel under the direct rule of YHWH, with the certitude of Urim and Thummim in their hands, THEY were not to suffer a witch to live.

But if WE, WITHOUT being part of the covenant with that law in it, and WITHOUT the Urim and Thummim to be absolutely certain of guilt, burn witches, as we did, we break the older, absolute law given to all mankind through Noah - to not kill.

So, if we follow the Torah and apply it literally and impose death sentences for Torah crimes that WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO ENFORCE, we break the law against murder and we do so unrepentantly, thinking ourselves self righteous, and we die unrepentant and damned to hell as murderers. All of those who burnt witches and heretics in "obedience" to a Torah law that WAS NOT THEIRS TO OBEY, who died unrepentant because "it is written", are - under the law as revealed by Jesus from the throne room of heaven - very probably going to be cast into the flames of the Lake of Fire at judgment - merciless murderers who did it "in the name of God" , because they read what they wanted to read and ignored Christ's judgment that to be forgiven, one must forgive, and that if one has sin, one best not cast the stone.

Obeying the Torah as written without modification can get you damned. Nobody but ancient Hebrews had the right to kill witches or stone women for adultery or burn the daughters of priests for adultery. Nor did God ever grant anybody but the Hebrews the right to take up arms and slaughter other people in order to establish dominion over them and take their land.

If anybody BUT an ancient Hebrew does the same thing they did and believed himself justified because "it is written", he is a murderer who will be thrown into the lake of fire at judgment.

There are things that the Hebrews, governed directly by God, could do BECAUSE God's governance prevented error. If WE do it, without that governance, we are damned to hell as murderers.

So no, it is not good for us to be obeying the Torah's laws. We need to seek out and understand the laws of Jesus, and ONLY those laws. The rest is for instruction, but we can actually damn ourselves if we mistakenly think that WE are Hebrews with the power to inflict the death penalties of the Torah. God never, ever granted that to us, and when we do it anyway, we're not just, we're killers. And damned.

The Nazis treated the Jews like the Hebrews were commanded to treat the Canaanites. Not to their credit.

 

[Soyeong]

For Jews, perhaps. The Mosaic law was not given in the abstract to the world. It was part of a covenant, a contract, whose terms were IF you particular people here and your lineal biological descendants (you Hebrews, specifically, not everybody in the world), obey me in all of these things, then you shall have your secure farms in the land of Canaan. But if you don't, I will drive you out and torment you to the end of the world.

All of those laws were for those people under that contract. Your name tells me you're Korean - and your people were never part of that contract, or under its terms.

You can't become part of the contract by following some of those laws (you don't follow them all).

God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so He has always had such a conduct, and His law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) because it is based on God's character and it is His instructions for how to have such a conduct. So the way to have such a conduct existed from the beginning and exists independently of any covenant. Even if God has made no covenants man, anyone who wanted to know how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct could read God's law to find out, so there is a difference between the way to have such a conduct and a covenant agreement to have such a conduct. God's character has not changed between any of His covenants, so the way to act in line with His character has remained the same, and indeed, as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10). So I am in complete agreement that we are not part of the Old Covenant and that we should not seek to be part of it, but I am in disagreement that we shouldn't obey God's law or that we shouldn't seek to follow Messiah's perfect example of obedience to the law (1 Peter 2:21-22), walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6), imitate him (1 Corinthians 11:1) or be like him (Philippians 2:5).