Part 2:

the other laws being kept that the Bible says aren’t anymore

Looking for these .... laws that the Bible says aren't laws? Do you mean when it says they are laws but are fading?

“A shadow of things to come” here does not mean “foreshadow;” it means “pales in comparison to.”

This is at least a facially possible reading of Col. 2:16-17. Then it would mean "let no man ... judge you in" things "which are" (presently) paling in comparison to "things to come", where the "body" casting the shadow is Christ. Which would mean that, today being the same era in which Paul wrote, nobody should judge Sabbath-keepers today (Sun or Sat) because they exist today to compare to Christ to come even as they are a fading representation like most all earthly things. So, like I said, in Paul's day and in our day these things still can be done without being judged if they are present shadows of Christ's body to come. Again, no legalism, Romans 14.

THE ENTIRE BODY OF JUDAISM obeys the Mosaic rules for salvation, denying Christ, denying the Gospel, denying the Spirit, denying the sole way to eternity.

80%-90% of Jews are secular, so let's say you mean "observant Rabbinical Judaism". If they obey for salvation, or deny Christ or Gospel or Spirit or the one Way, of course that's not salvation. But the oddity of Rabbinical Judaism is that it assumes its standard to be the Tanakh, so (just as Jesus said) anything built upon the Tanakh that isn't supported by it will fail. In that this Judaism is inconsistent. As an evangelist, I have hope that the inconsistency will resolve the right way, namely admitting the Tanakh's insistence upon Jesus coming at the time he did, just as I think you've expressed hope that Jews will turn from error and embrace Jesus. I do look out for those rabbis who specifically teach that denial of Jesus is essential to Judaism, and in all this time I've found only one debatable modern rabbi, in a Hebrew pull quote that I'm not competent to judge. If you have evidence of rabbis specifically teaching rejection of Jesus as part of Judaism, I'm all ears, and have been for years of searching.

To be a jew is to deny Christ, and to deny from knowledge, rather than mere ignorance.

That's not valid ethnically, as it judges the innocent children; and it's not valid religiously, because I've asked for proof and haven't received it. It's commonly asserted that Jews deny Christ today, and many do out of culture, but this is not taught them out of religion, which almost always teaches instead to learn to dodge and avoid the question.

You’ve openly admitted the old covenant doesn’t exist anymore, because Christ fulfilled it. You’ve openly admitted that jews are damned for all eternity because they deny Christ.

I didn't say the old doesn't exist, it still exists between Father and Son and we continue fulfilling it by filling up the works of the Son. I didn't say Jews deny Christ, I said when they deny Christ they are damned. So if you still want to debate these things, you could try to show that "the law of Christ" that we keep does not fulfill of the law of Moses, or that some rabbi or rabbinical org said that rejection of Jesus is a tenet of Judaism.

He needs to return already. Now. His kingdom has fully abandoned Him. I don’t look twice my age for no reason.

Then I pray that he returns as needed, both in his time for everyone, and in his individual returning to each of us when he speaks anew in our spirits. He can return for you today by speaking to you. The time he returns for the whole world I suspect will also come exactly when needed (Gandalf) regardless of our miscalculations.

To say that the old was not fulfilled by the new implies that you demand male genital mutilation for the sake of salvation ....

I didn't say the old was not fulfilled, I said it was not abolished. I didn't say that the old was ever for salvation, I said that it could only be honored by faith in Jesus, not that it's kept perfectly by outward standards, but that it's accounted as righteousness and perfection by God's standard of imputation by the kinsman-redeemer. By faith Abel sacrificed his sheep, think about it, never that anyone sacrificed sheep for salvation. As RFK just showed, many people circumcise today for many reasons, and I'm not saying that this is demanded but that this is permitted, if done by faith in Jesus. Jesus moved the dial from incomplete to complete (obtained the Father's answer for humanity, Ps. 22:21, where Jesus quotes the first and last verses thus defining "it is finished" by context); so I can admit that this part is "done". Now we have a lot more to "do" as described in 22:22-31. Yet this did not change in any way humanity's ability to seek God by faith, including by keeping some Mosaic laws as a shadow of what Jesus did. Why else would you go to church on Sunday except due to grateful interpretation of Mosaic law?

Found it. It means destroy, dissolve, overthrow, or abolish. Within the context of this specific verse, it means “annulling authority.” As in “it doesn’t have authority anymore.”

Yes, that's kataluo G2647. If you were following, that's exactly what Jesus says he DOESN'T DO in Matt. 5:17. So the law still has authority; and that authority was never legalism or salvation by works, but was always (schoolmaster authority) the shadow of the body of Christ, just as I said. Yes, words mean exactly what they mean. (There are rare occasions when Hebrew thought informs the Greek but those are easily proven by context including the LXX.)

will you improve your view?

It appears to me you just proved the opposite of what you think you proved, so I see nothing for me to change. If Jesus had said he does abolish, your conclusion would hold. Are you ready to improve your view about this? Did you instead mean to study "fulfill" (pleroo G4137)?

Here's my sincere attempt to agree with your concern using Scriptural language.

1. Christ fulfilled the old covenant [Matt. 5:17], which we broke [Jer. 31:32] and are not under [Rom. 6:14], and he taught the law of Christ that we are under [1 Cor. 9:21].
2. Judaizers are damned for all eternity because they explicitly reject Christ or their actions and beliefs are hollow mockeries of salvation [Gal. 2:14]. Jews are damned for all eternity if they explicitly reject Christ or their actions and beliefs are hollow mockeries of salvation [Rom. 2:23].

I can't agree that abolish or replace apply when the text doesn't say so (and you appear to have just mistook a key text); and I can't agree that the word Jew means by default a rejector of Christ because neither the Bible nor the Jews ever define it this way.

(1) If you just wanted to mean "Jews are damned because if they're not damned they're not Jews", most people don't use such tautology. I'd still ask for official proof before counting out any rabbi out of hand.

(2) If you want to mean "Jesus's teachings replaced the old covenant", that appears contradicted by your own Hebrews 8 where the place of the new covenant is different from the place of the old; maybe you mean "transcended", which is a fine word for infinity confronting finity. In fact the KJV is "excel" as in Heb. 8:6, and in "For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious" (2 Cor. 3:10-11). Oh, look, we finally found one of your words, "done away", that you didn't find. Oh, but in Greek it's a present participle not a past participle, so it's "the doing away through glory". What's the doing away, or the abolishing (katargeo)? The "vail" (14) to be "taken away" (16). So, if you had said 2 Cor. 3 has doing away and abolishing in it, I already expressed interest in studying that word; but you didn't. At it stands it appears to have value for us, because the veil represents human inability, which is being abolished and done away with; and because the glory of Christ make the glory of Moses "no glory in this respect". If you wanted me to say "the old covenant has no place in respect of the place of the new covenant", that might work for me if I'm confident you're not disowning the fact that a shadow does have a "place" in a different respect, namely as a pointer.

If you want to mean "Christ obeyed Moses to death so now obedience to Moses has no benefit" (except the Ten Words and/or whatever we say the law of Christ is within the law of Moses), you're getting close to a form of Christianity, but I grew up in that form and never got answers about why we get to divvy up the law into moral and ceremonial. Now I know. Romans 14 passim specifically says that if someone observes a day or abstains from questionable meat, which are Mosaic, then we are to receive them along with those who don't; so it appears Mosaic obedience can still have shadowy (indicative) value: "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord".

You've presented as someone who is willing to take the Bible literally on everything it teaches

Nowhere has this been made indicative.

Okay, pardon me for misstatement in an attempt to speak graciously, as I didn't mean to suggest that I was about to jump to legalism as you hint. You present as someone who takes the whole Bible seriously, rather than someone who thinks parts are uninspired. Jesus teaches that all the commands, including any about dealing with evil or with military issues, have spiritual meaning that we'll say "excels" their physical meaning, and we'll say gives the physical meaning "no glory in that respect". Maybe that'll be enough to help.