What Laws are still valid to christians

[Elin]

To me this looks like attributes are being assigned to terms that do not necessarily have those attributes within the text.
In Hebrews 7:18 it refers to one law.

Are you saying. . .that many times in the NT, the whole Mosaic law was not referred to, including
by Jesus himself (Mt 5:17, 22:36, 23:23, etc.), as simply "the law"?

Are you saying. . .that "the law" which was "received by the "people," which was weak and useless
to make them perfect; i.e., righteous (Heb 7:18-19), was just "the law" governing the priesthood,
but the rest of the Mosaic law was able to make them righteous?

Are you saying. . . that changing the priesthood on which the Mosaic law was based, did not also
require a change in the Mosaic law, because then the Mosaic law no longer had a basis (Heb 7:11-12)?

Your hermeneutic needs a serious workover.

As for the sacrificial laws, I believe they should be observed. And when I say should I mean in the sense that one would do well to make use of a system of laws that God gave us for our own good. It only makes sense. And it would not only seem presumptuous but also be plainly incorrect to assume that we understand all of the reasons for all of the laws. That is, in my experience.

So are you being obedient in observance of the sacrifical laws?

I would be interested to know how we are to do that.

 

[Yury]

Interesting find, Yury.

Thank you. I believe that is very important to understand Jesus attitude about the Law.
How Jesus went to his fullness of the Godhead is in Him? What steps Jesus had taken? About what He asked His Father? How that what was came from the Father changed His human nature to the nature of the Son of God? I mean how Father by abiging in Him had done His work. How through the Scripture, the Law including, God was teaching Him?

 

[john832]

I think that here isn't refers a literally animals, and animals it's just a image of essence of what authors of Scripture really wanted we known.

For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 1Cor 9:9-10

+

In an images of animals Peter later recognised people of other tribe and nation.

"And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered.
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.
So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.” (Acts 10:27-29)
+
So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. (Acts 10:34-35)

About that more detail says an apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas (at least that is how it traditionally associated with).

What this shows is that the Law stil has application today. It is not done away, but rather we have been given a much fuller understanding of it...

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Isa 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Here is the above in the NKJV...

Isa 42:21 The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable.

The Law is not set aside, it is exalted.

The principles of the Law still have application today and are far deeper than just the physical application Israel could put them to. They did nto have the Holy Spirit to be able to understand and apply them.

 

[john832]

I would say the interpetation of the Law was changed.

Eph 2:15 when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace,

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;


Jesus revealed part of what how we need to understand commanments in His sermon on the mount (Matthew 5)

What are ordinances? And what ordinances are being spoken of?

Hmmm, let's read more of Paul's writings...

Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Heb 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
Heb 9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
Heb 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

And here we see what the ordinances are.

It is careless to assume that the only teaching Paul ever gave to the church at Ephesus is the letter we have. Example:

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

What epsitle is this? We, by least count, really have II Cor. and III Cor. This verse refers to a previous epistle that was not canonized. Do not assume the only instruction the Ephesians had was the single letter that was put into the Bible. Realizing this, we can see that the ordinances here are not the Law, but specifics about the service of God. Otherwise it flies in the face of...

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

a tittle is comparable to the crossing of a "t" in Engish.

 

[Elin]

Was Peter a slow learner?

Peter, who was with Christ, ate with Him, travelled with Him and stood beside Him as He taught, still refusing to eat unclean meats? Why did He doubt what the vision meant?

Why was he still wondering after the giving of the Holy Spirit?

Are you saying that Peter's vision was a lie?

See the rest of the story.
He wasn't, he got it.

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Now why isn't there ONE WORD about food in Peter's explanation? Did it go right over his head?

I'm thinkin' in your truncated version that it's not Peter's head that it went over.

See the rest of the story in Ac 11:1-13.

You employ a lot of truncation of Scripture in supporting your false theology.

Interesting, but the comment of Elin's in blue

More misrepresentation. . .

Elin made no such comment.

is NOT in the KJV or the NKJV text.

And it is in the NAS, NIV, Amplified.

Your point?

This chapter is not about clean and unclean meats,

It doesn't have to be.

Mk 7:19 is clear: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all food "clean.")"

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Paul was teaching clean and unclean meats here.

Now let me be sure I have this straight. . .

Are you saying that in the above, Paul was stating all food was not clean?

Why was Paul still teaching about meats that are set apart in the Word of God?

How about the Millenium?

Clean and unclean still in force in the Millenium.

. . . .

Which, as you have demonstrated above, is arrived at by misrepresentation, truncation and
blatant contradiction of the word of God.

"Run, Forest, run!"

 

[Elin]

What this shows is that the Law stil has application today. It is not done away, but rather we have been given a much fuller understanding of it...

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Isa 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Here is the above in the NKJV...

Isa 42:21 The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable.

The Law is not set aside, it is exalted.

The principles of the Law still have application today and are far deeper than just the physical application Israel could put them to. They did nto have the Holy Spirit to be able to understand and apply them.

I would be interested in knowing how you observe the laws requiring animal sacrifices.

 

[john832]

Are you saying that Peter's vision was a lie?

Of course not, please try to keep up.

See the rest of the story.
He wasn't, he got it.

Please pray tell, where does he have the ah-ha moment and order up spareribs with a shrimp cocktail appetizer?

I'm thinkin' in your truncated version that it's not Peter's head that it went over.

See the rest of the story in Ac 11:1-13.

I have read the rest of the story, still can't find where Peter infers, much less states, that this is about what we put in our mouths.

You employ a lot of truncation of Scripture in supporting your false theology.

Well, I coulp C&P Acts 10 and 11 for you, but I expected you could read most of it for yourself.

Speaking of truncation, pulling one verse out of context in Mark 7 is without a doubt the most indepth exegesis of that subject I have ever read.

More misrepresentation. . .

Elin made no such comment.

You DID NOT post this...

Originally Posted by Elin

" 'Are you so dull? . .Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean.'
(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")" -- Mk 7:18-19

?????

And it is in the NAS, NIV, Amplified.

Your point?

Choose your version, especially one that had material added.

It doesn't have to be.

Interesting, when Christ is teaching about about eating with unwashed hands, you can just apply that to any subject you wish if it suits your needs?

Mk 7:19 is clear: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all food "clean.")"

Now let me be sure I have this straight. . .

Are you saying that in the above, Paul was stating all food was not clean?[/quote

Well, uh, lemme see hear, Paul referred to creatures that are sanctified by the Word of God. Now please tell me what set apart by the Word of God means? Do you suppose it means nothing? Are you in the habit of ignoring statements of scripture that do not suit your agenda?

. . . .

I noticed that about your theology, it has left you confused.

Which, as you have demonstrated above, is arrived at by misrepresentation, truncation and
blatant contradiction of the word of God.

"Run, Forest, run!"

So, in order to improve my understanding, I must begin to apply scripture to any subject regardless of the content? I must ignore the context? And above all, must ignore statements that don't fit my ideas?

No thanks, I shall be content to retain my current methods.

 

[chubbena]

Authoritative revelation to the Church ended with the apostles.

Who said that?

They were written to the Church, not to unbelievers.

So law breakers are unbelievers?

What do you mean by the quote.

Atonement has to be made for every sin. Animal sacrifice was the type.

No he did not.

"We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away."

"What we have heard" is the message of the gospel; i.e., the person Christ as the God-man and his work
on the cross, from which greater revelation given through the Son (Heb 1:1-2)we must not "drift away."

Did not explicitly but did so implicitly. He didn't say "now that you have the good news of the salvation you may ignore what's said in the past" but rather "we must pay MORE careful attention".
Now what is the gospel? Isn't it all over the book of Isaiah especially chapter 52?

Yes, in 2:13 the writer puts the words of Is 8:17-18 in the mouth of the Messiah.

Why? Because the writer of Hebrews was showing that Jesus is the fulfillment of Is 8:17-18:

Of Isa 8:17 - Jesus overcame by his personal faith in God's promises, which makes him the author
and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2).

Of Isa 8:18 - the Father's children are given to the Son to be his brothers (Heb 7:11).

Wrong. It wasn't the writer who puts the words of Is 8:17-18 in the mouth of the Messiah. It's the Messiah, who's the Word, spoke through Isaiah and understood by the Hebrew writer and thus written.
How do you prove He is the Messiah without examining the whole chapter and even the whole book of Isaiah and even the whole OT?
Could you pull out 8:20 and say it's not about the Messiah?

Boot strapping turns out again not to be good hermeneutics.

Neither is not studying the context.

 

[john832]

Who said that?


So law breakers are unbelievers?


Atonement has to be made for every sin. Animal sacrifice was the type.

If I may, I would like to add a little...

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Did not explicitly but did so implicitly. He didn't say "now that you have the good news of the salvation you may ignore what's said in the past" but rather "we must pay MORE careful attention".
Now what is the gospel? Isn't it all over the book of Isaiah especially chapter 52?

Wrong. It wasn't the writer who puts the words of Is 8:17-18 in the mouth of the Messiah. It's the Messiah, who's the Word, spoke through Isaiah and understood by the Hebrew writer and thus written.
How do you prove He is the Messiah without examining the whole chapter and even the whole book of Isaiah and even the whole OT?
Could you pull out 8:20 and say it's not about the Messiah?

Some can, some are expert at lifting verses out of context.

Neither is not studying the context.

I have been chastened for studying the context and been told one does not have to do that. One can apply a statement our of context any way one sees fit.

 

[chubbena]

Even without the comment supposedly added by Mark (of which I see no proof. so not sure where your getting this) It still says what Jesus says, We ALL should come up to the same conclusion.

Whatever is taken in by the mouth to the stomach is purified when we (in the greek literally go out to the latrine, or toilet)

Even with the comment supposedly said by Jesus. It still says what Jesus says "all food clean" but the unclean are not food according to the scripture, not according to translators.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I would be interested in knowing how you observe the laws requiring animal sacrifices.

how else could he have his sin forgiven? he evidently believes christ only paid for sin before he was saved. Now he is left to find another way to have it forgiven.

without the shedding of blood. there can BE NO FORGIVENESS.. so I wonder. what shed blood is being shed for all his sin after he was saved, and all future sin he will commit??

I would like to know this also!

 

[chubbena]

See the rest of the story in Ac 11:1-13.

Assuming
a. Cornelius and his family were devout, God fearing and prayed to God regularly yet ignored the law regarding clean and unclean, if not the whole law, when the OT was the only scripture available at that point in time.
b. Cornelius knew Peter is a Jew and yet served him pork chop and shrimp fro dinner.
Quite possible.

 

[TheAristocat]

Are you saying. . .that "the law" which was "received by the "people," which was weak and useless
to make them perfect; i.e., righteous (Heb 7:18-19), was just "the law" governing the priesthood, but the rest of the Mosaic law was able to make them righteous?

I think it's important to understand that there's a difference between righteous and holy behavior and being righteous and holy. One's behavior becomes righteous and holy when it is conformed to God's holy standard. But this does not necessarily make the person, themself, righteous and holy. However, that was the case for Christ. Because he was found sinless, living a life in full accordance with God's will. Did Adam need Christ's sacrifice before he disobeyed God? Regardless of what I say, you can see these things for yourself and draw the appropriate conclusions.

If you want a simple and short answer, I'm saying that Hebrews 7 doesn't deal with the Law as it relates to us. So this passage has no bearing on whether or not we - as human beings - should observe the Law. The passage deals with the "translated" Christ who is God, the creator and master of the Law.

Christ would not abolish the Law when it is made for sinful Men when there is still sin in the world. In fact he said he came to fulfill it (i.e. fill it up). It is a holy standard by the which we can measure our actions. Without it we don't know if homosexual acts are improper, if resting on the Sabbath is right, if eating spiders and rats is wrong, because these do not clearly deal with the laws of love according to our limited human knowledge. But it has been said that all of these laws are summed up by the laws of love. That means, in my opinion, that they conform to the laws of love.

Are you saying. . . that changing the priesthood on which the Mosaic law was based, did not also
require a change in the Mosaic law, because then the Mosaic law no longer had a basis (Heb 7:11-12)?

This is a confusing point. Because when a human being is translated they become something different even if they remain the same person. But when something as abstract as a concept (for instance, a system of laws) is "translated", its former continues to exist in the minds of people. Especially when it still has its proper application with us. The earthly has always existed alongside the heavenly, but in the case of Christ the Law that applies to him now is the "translated" one. If that makes sense. That's not to say there are two distinct Law codes - one earthly and one heavenly. But that's the jargon Paul uses to make sense of Christ's role as our "High Priest."

So are you being obedient in observance of the sacrifical laws?

A great many of those sacrificial laws are to be performed by those God has ordained to perform them. We see that when such sacrifices are performed by others that this is not in accordance with God's will for us (1 Samuel 13:8-14).

You've been asking a lot of questions, and I'd like to say that I'm happy to answer them. But right now I'm neither happy nor sad - just kind of bored. lol I'd like to ask a question though. If you happened to suddenly believe that the laws of God were a good guide to which our behavior should be conformed, then what would you do? Or how would you feel? Would you feel that you suddenly had a great many new opportunities to serve God in your daily life? Or would you feel annoyingly preoccupied and distanced from God in your relationship with him?

 

[Elin]

What are ordinances? And what ordinances are being spoken of?

Hmmm, let's read more of Paul's writings...

Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

First, familiarity with Paul's writings evidence that he did not write the letter to the Hebrews.

Secondly, the regulations for the tabernacle are not the only ordinances in the Mosaic law.
Many regulations there are referred to as ordinances.

It is careless to assume that the only teaching Paul ever gave to the church at Ephesus is the letter we have. Example:

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

What epsitle is this? We, by least count, really have II Cor. and III Cor. This verse refers to a previous epistle that was not canonized.

Wrong.

It refers to a letter that could not be found.

Do not assume the only instruction the Ephesians had was the single letter that was put into the Bible.

Are you saying that the early church had access to an epistle they knew was from Paul,
and chose to omit it from the Bible?

You get a lot of exercise just in jumping to conclusions.

Realizing this, we can see that the ordinances here are not the Law, but specifics about the service of God.

Your human reasoning is so fallacious because it is divorced from the Scriptures.

The ordinances are precisely the law (Lev 18:4; Nu 19:2, 31:21, etc.), which covered everything
from sacrifice, defilement and cleansing, to worship, feasts and food.

Otherwise it flies in the face of...

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I note that both are in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

a tittle is comparable to the crossing of a "t" in Engish.

We've been around this bush before.
But let's go around it again.

The law did not fail, because
Jesus did fulfill the Mosaic law,

and because God, to fulfill Ps 110:4,
changed the priesthood in the order of Aaron to the priesthood in the order of Melchizedek,
he also changed the law given on the basis of the Aaronic priesthood (Heb 7:9-12),
setting aside the Mosic law because it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness or salvation
(Heb 7:18-19),
and replacing it with the law of Christ (Gal 6:2), which is the law of God for the NT (1Co 9:21)
but with no curse (Dt 27:26; Gal 3:10) attached for not keeping "every word,"
which is a huge difference for the people o God,
and which law of Christ fulfills (accomplishes) the law (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8, 10), for

if I love God, I will not take his name in vain, nor worship idols;
if I love my parents, I will not dishonor them,
if I love my neighbors, I will not steal from them, nor murder them,
nor commit adultery with their spouses, nor lust after their possessions,

because love fulfills (accomplishes) the whole law (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8, 10).

God's law for the NT is the law of Christ, which fulfills (accomplishes) the law,
which law in the NT is presented as the Decalogue (Mt 22:37-38; Ro 13:8-10).

The "ordinances" set aside (Heb 7:18-19) were not just the regulations for worship,
but was the whole Mosaic law.

 

[TheAristocat]

The different words used for 'fulfill' in Matthew 5:17 and Matthew 5:18 are a good example of where the confusion on the word fulfill is coming from.

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

fulfill = pleroo = to fill up

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

fulfill = ginomai = to come to pass (of events). There are still plenty of prophecies that must be fulfilled in this respect (i.e. come to pass). Jesus only fulfilled so many of these prophecies so far.

 

[Elin]

Of course not, please try to keep up.

Please pray tell, where does he have the ah-ha moment and order up spareribs with a shrimp cocktail appetizer?

Well, I could C&P Acts 10 and 11 for you, but I expected you could read most of it for yourself.

Speaking of truncation, pulling one verse out of Mark 7 is without a doubt the most indepth exegesis of that subject I have ever read.

Mk 7:19 is clear: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all food "clean.")"
Now let me be sure I have this straight. . .

Are you saying that in the above, Paul was stating all food was not clean?

I noticed that about your theology, it has left you confused.

Non-responsive. . .unsurprisingly.

 

[john832]

First, familiarity with Paul's writings evidence that he did not write the letter to the Hebrews.

Who's familiarity? Most scholars believe Paul DID write the book.

Dr. Bullinger for one...

AUTHORSHIP . The arguments in favour of the Pauline authorship are much more weighty than those in favour of all other candidates put together, and they may be stated thus:-

1. The thought and reasonings are Paul''s, whatever the style and language may be. All his other epistles were written to churches mainly composed of Gentiles. In addressing such an epistle to Hebrews , he would naturally write as an instructed scribe, one brought up
"at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers" (Act_22:3). It is therefore futile to argue that if Paul were really the author, the language and style would have been in exact accord with those of the other epistles. Had this been so, it would be an argument against , and not in favour of, Paul''s authorship.

2. There is a certain amount of external testimony that Paul was the writer, but none as to any other.

Secondly, the regulations for the tabernacle are not the only ordinances in the Mosaic law.
Many regulations there are referred to as ordinances.

But the Commandments are not.

Wrong.

It refers to a letter that could not be found.

so Paul lied here, there was no previous epistle?

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

If YOU don't agree with it, just pull it out of scripture?

Are you saying that the early church had access to an epistle they knew was from Paul,
and chose to omit it from the Bible?

NO, PAUL SAID the Corinthians had access to an earlier epistle as state by Paul in I Cor 5:9

You get a lot of exercise just in jumping to conclusions.

So now Paul's own statements are jumping to conclusions?

Your human reasoning is so fallacious because it is divorced from the Scriptures.

I noticed that you refuted my statements with reams of scripture.

The ordinances are precisely the law (Lev 18:4; Nu 19:2, 31:21, etc.), which covered everything
from sacrifice, defilement and cleansing, to worship, feasts and food.

Now plain statements are ordinances that no longer apply?

Lev 23:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

I note that both are in the kingdom of heaven.

More of your "adapting" of scripture to your wishes. It says those in the Kingdom will call them least, it doesn't say they will be there.

We've been around this bush before.
But let's go around it again.

The law did not fail, because
Jesus did fulfill the Mosaic law,

and because God, to fulfill Ps 110:4,
changed the priesthood in the order of Aaron to the priesthood in the order of Melchizedek,
he also changed the law given on the basis of the Aaronic priesthood (Heb 7:9-12),
setting aside the Mosic law because it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness or salvation
(Heb 7:18-19),
and replacing it with the law of Christ (Gal 6:2), which is the law of God for the NT (1Co 9:21)
but with no curse (Dt 27:26; Gal 3:10) attached for not keeping "every word,"
which is a huge difference for the people o God,
and which law of Christ fulfills (accomplishes) the law (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8, 10), for

if I love God, I will not take his name in vain, nor worship idols;
if I love my parents, I will not dishonor them,
if I love my neighbors, I will not steal from them, nor murder them,
nor commit adultery with their spouses, nor lust after their possessions,

because love fulfills (accomplishes) the whole law (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8, 10).

God's law for the NT is the law of Christ, which fulfills (accomplishes) the law,
which law in the NT is presented as the Decalogue (Mt 22:37-38; Ro 13:8-10).

The "ordinances" set aside (Heb 7:18-19) were not just the regulations for worship,
but was the whole Mosaic law.

Yep, here we go again, the Law that determined who could and who could not be a Priest is now misconstrued to contain all of the Law. You are again lifting verses out of context and twisting them to your own uses...

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Yury]

What this shows is that the Law stil has application today. It is not done away, but rather we have been given a much fuller understanding of it...
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Isa 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
Here is the above in the NKJV...
Isa 42:21 The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable.
The Law is not set aside, it is exalted.
The principles of the Law still have application today and are far deeper than just the physical application Israel could put them to. They did nto have the Holy Spirit to be able to understand and apply them.

Yeah, no questions about that. I agree with that.

 

[Yury]

What are ordinances? And what ordinances are being spoken of?
Hmmm, let's read more of Paul's writings...

I'm actually understanding what you're trying to explain and I'm agree with you.

In my opinion, as far as I can see through the Scripture, the teaching (or ordinances) Of Jesus comes out from His own experience of trying understanding and fulfilled the Law. So that's why His preaching doesn't contrary to the Law but says the same, but just more profound, it's revealed the biggest depth of wisdom of God.

John 5:45-47 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

 

[john832]

I'm actually understanding what you're trying to explain and I'm agree with you.

In my opinion, as far as I can see through the Scripture, the teaching (or ordinances) Of Jesus comes out from His own experience of trying understanding and fulfilled the Law. So that's why His preaching doesn't contrary to the Law but says the same, but just more profound, it's revealed the biggest depth of wisdom of God.

John 5:45-47 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

Jesus Christ was the LORD who GAVE the Law to Moses. I think He understood it in it's ultimate.