in th.

(1 Cor. 9:21). (That passage is full of paradoxes to be kept in tension: we are also "as under the law" of the Jews, 20,

20 is only mentioning people who were choosing to follow the Old Law. Not that "we" are still under it.

while still "not under the law", Rom. 6:14.) The reason we are not under the law (being the old covenant)

Thanks for ceding the point.

is that we broke it, Rom. 7:9.

But people are still breaking God's Commands, even though we are under the New covenant. So no. Jesus fulfilled the Old Law, now the New Covenant is what people should be following.

Yes, Jesus as God the Son retains His spiritual separation unto God the Father

Then you should have said "the Father", not "God".

by circumcision forever.

What? He was always a Distinct Person from the Father.

"That doesn't mean we TODAY are obliged to try to fulfill it. I don't see you sacrificing bulls."

Correct, and my point is that Israel was never obliged to try to fulfill it unless an Israelite (or new Israelite) were seeking to live with perfect righteousness,

??

(For instance, Ezekiel says that Noah, Daniel, and Job lived lives that were without fault before men,

Before men. But not before God.

and Catholics generally hold that Mary did too.)

The compromisers!

millennia of demonstrating that this couldn't happen by mere human effort led up to the revelation that only God In Human Form could do it.

True

I learned from the dispensationalists "third temple bad", because Antichrist will defile it; but having read through Revelation more closely I understand that God's temporary permission for this defilement is to demonstrate the evil of evil and to cleanse it permanently, and so I don't oppose building the temple.

But God also ""lets"" the devil and demons terrorize humanity. Guess you shouldn't oppose them, either.

Fact is that Ezekiel 40-48 is nine chadownpters about the layout and sacrifices in that temple being honorable to God, and as a literalist it seems to me that will happen again. But it can only happen the way that Abel, David, Solomon, or Paul sacrificed animals, namely by faith in God, both in what He's already revealed about his plan of salvation and what He has yet to reveal. (Going back one step from Abel, it appears that God himself, in the person of Jesus, sacrificed two animals because Adam and Eve were given skins, and probably a fellowship meal too for the insides.) Saying the third temple is likely to happen is not related at all to pressuring people to keep laws (including sacrifices) because a sacrifice of faith is voluntary but a sacrifice of legalism is held to be obligatory.

Matthew 5-7 shows that the law is more than the literal commands like "do not murder", it's spiritual and about even unrighteous anger and lust of the heart.

I grant Rom. 4:16 is debatable, I listed it because, in my understanding of interpretation, the present tense is significant because Jesus says to the Sadducees that it is. The present is not in the phrase "is of the law" but it's in "Abraham; who is the father of us all", and Gal. 3:16 shows that Jesus is uniquely the Seed of Abraham. We could argue that the seed "of the law" only applies when they are alive, which is the debatable point; but I listed it because it's a potential support despite being debatable, and it supports the other witnesses that are clearer.

"And now it has been fulfilled. Thanks for citing a Verse directly proving that we AREN'T under it, and the New Covenant is how we can enter Heaven. No one comes to God EXECPT by Jesus."

Yes, we're not under the old law because we broke it, and we enter heaven by the free gift of Jesus that is His to share by His keeping it, and no other way. As I said, looking up destroy, abolish, fulfill, might be interesting, and with you I would take the effort even though I don't take the effort with those who aren't clearly committed to Truth. As a preview, "fulfill" in Greek translates three words about telos (goal), four about pleroma (fulness), and two generic words. I've previously done a study here on the "telos" function as being a final ongoing state and not just a conclusion that passes and fades. I would suspect that detailed study wouldn't teach that what is "fulfilled" is destroyed or abolished thereby; it's sure not true of fulfilled prophecy.

"TODAY, it's on humanity to obey the NEW COVENANT. But you do teach that people still should follow the Old Covenant?"

I don't teach that it's "on" us, that we "should", that we "have to" in a pressure sense, or that that was ever true of anyone. We could teach that without the pressure sense we "should" keep all the Mosaic physical and spiritual laws fitting to cultural context, but that would only be to prove that we haven't, and can't in ourselves. The teaching of "should" often leads to false guilt and legalism. The Ten Words say instead "thou shalt", "you shall", not "you should". Not because it's "on" us by pressure, but because we are enabled to grow into the life of the Ten Words. Always have been.

But I do teach that we "get to" obey the Ten Words and the Mosaic law. When people are asked to summarize the law of Christ in one or two commands, they typically go with the Golden Rule and the Shema, loving God with everything. But guess what, those are both Mosaic commands and not of the Ten Words! So I use odd ones like "no stumbling block before the blind" as a good example, because that's also an obscure command but its spiritual meaning, to be transparent with people and not hide traps for them, is clear and certainly part of Christian life. When Jesus says all the [613] commands hang on these two, He's saying they all connect to the same love principle in different applications of life.

Thks for info.

[....

....

.........]

spiritual separation unto God thereby forever.

You mean unto the Father?? Jesus is God, but not the Father.

I haven't pressed this form of expressing the point into texts.

....

A quick check shows that Rom. 7:14 emphasizes "the law is spiritual"

That doesn't mean we TODAY are obliged to try to fulfill it. I don't see you sacrificing bulls.

as I glean from Matthew 5-7

??

Rom. 4:16 implies Jesus is still a man "of the law",

Doubtful. Whether He is "STILL" or not, there's no such implication.

Rom. 10:4 has "Christ is the end (telos, goal) of the law",

And now it has been fulfilled. Thanks for citing a Verse directly proving that we AREN'T under it, and the New Covenant is how we can enter Heaven. No one comes to God EXECPT by Jesus.

and Rom. 13:10 "love is the fulfilling of the law" (cf. Gal. 5:14, James 1:25, 2:12) seems to cement the point.

Jesus doing all the work. Thanks for admitting that Jesus followed the Old Law so TODAY, it's on humanity to obey the NEW COVENANT.

"that people still have to follow the 613 Laws"

No, I don't teach this,

But you do teach that people still should follow the Old Covenant?

whatever he says goes, 1 Cor. 9:21.

whatever He says*

[According to Romans 14, the person who decides he wants to keep more laws, who does so out of conviction and gratitude without any legalistic hope of payment, is to be accepted just as the one who does not so decide. So it's not a requirement, it's an option among expressions of Christianity among the nations. (Incidentally, less than half of the 613 laws can be kept literally in the absence of a temple, so Rabbinical Judaism has always taught that those laws don't matter as long as Jews say the right words in lieu and hope for the rebuilding; that's an annulment of more than half of Moses. But our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, and so I have already kept all 613 laws because I did so in Christ since he gave that life of obedience to me. So we have a benefit over those who count the 613 scrupulously.)]

I believe it's fact that Jesus kept all of the 613 commands insofar as he

as He*

[had part in carrying out their application (e.g. some commands are primarily upon women and so the man's part is only to ensure the command is fulfilled by the woman). Skil seems to think otherwise, so I commend my belief to him as a possibility to be considered. I have lots of evidence but we would need to start with what he's willing to accept and to define, so the question of openness to possibility needs to come early in the discussion.]

P