Do we know how Yeshua lived his life?

Whose house? That was Matthew's house. That word is not "his" but "the" as in the other passage. That is not a KJV quote. Here's the actual quote:
And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? (Mt 9:9-11). After Matthew joined Christ, he invited Christ and His disciples to a meal, and also invited other tax collectors like himself (publicans) and sinners.

For a Gentile that is easy to answer.

The Gentiles never had the law.

The nation of Israel was under the Mosaic law for a long period of time.

No country in the world is under the Mosaic law these days.

Christ Himself is the end of the law, Christ is the living fulfillment of the law.

Okay, be blessed.

OFF TOPIC

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I know there will be backlash from this statement, yet it is true. Many see this as saying if anyone simply believes they find life. However, Satan knows of Yeshua, he believes all that Yeshua has done, and yet has no place in Heaven. So how should we understand this passage? The truth is, as with all scripture we need the full story. So keep this in mind as we move forward.

Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

One can look at this and find any number of ways to point at another and say, Yep thats you. However we have no authority to judge the salvation of anyone other than our selves. Oh sure we may find someone to be a person we wish nothing to do with.
Just as we can discern when a person is for real or not. Something we must do daily, if we are to find others that hold truth to be more important than church doctrine.

For chapter 4 I leave it to you to read. You will find here commentary on that chapter.
In the eyes of many the lady at the well was a sinner, yet Yeshua doesn't make that claim at all. As we know when a sin was forgiven by Him, He told them to Go sin no more. So why not with this lady? Could it be that she wrongly put out every man she married, and so held no blame in it? As we know, or should if we truly care about getting to the truth, Back then children were impotent to any married couple. It meant that the family line would live on, and the inheritance stayed in the tribe, and family. As we see there was never a mention of kids, or wrong doing. So why would she go the well at an odd time, and what was wrong here.
Keep in mind none of this can be backed by scripture. However knowing what life was like back then helps. Also when we look at how Hagar mocked Sarah after giving birth to Ishmael, we can see how it was that this lady came to be at the well after everyone had left. No one wants to be mocked, even less so when it is about something they have no control over. from this one may conclude that the lady was barren, and was given a write of divorcee on that grounds. As for the one she was living with, it may have been a brother, uncle, or even a good friend. One thing is clear however, she was not living in sin, or Yeshua would have warned her to leave that behind, and sin no more. At lest in my mind.
Next we will look at the other topic in this chapter.

Last time I will ask, a simlpe yes or no is what I need. Are you saying the law was removed.

Good work placing that in context.

Luke's gospel in the New Testament gives a fairly detailed life of Jesus Christ from pre-conception to His resurrection.

I would like to discuss what Jesus was teaching. From a young age, Jesus got away from his parents ans was found in the temple. He was only 12 then: from Luke;
Luk 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
Luk 2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Later on, scripture point out that Jesus was in the temple teaching and proclaiming the kingdom of GOD.

One of the task of Jesus was sent for was to teach. He was an excellent teacher and used clear and simple language, that is easy to understand.

The question I would like to discuss is What was Jesus teaching other than proclaiming the Kingdom, was he teaching the commandments, the law and who was the intended audience?

Looking forward to discuss.

There are three aspects to the teachings of Christ: (1) to the Jews and Israel, (2) to His disciples and Christians, and (3) to all mankind. To the Jews Christ was clarifying the commandments and also pointing out the errors of their man-made doctrines (applicable to the religious leaders).

is three any references Jesus was teaching the Law of Moses?

These scriptures tell us Jesus had a house:

Mark 2:15 (KJV)
And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

John 1:38,39 (KJV)
Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.


It's too bad some think God was not faithful to provide for Jesus' needs.

Jesus tells us what He was teaching:

Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Since the time of John the Baptist going forward, the Gospel of the Kingdom was taught.

Jesus did NOT teach the law of moses, Case solved!

He was clarifying the Law of Moses, and there are quite a few Scriptures showing that. Christ presented the two greatest commandments of the Law which sum up the Law and the Prophets. And in the Sermon on the Mount He brought out the spiritual aspects of the Law. He also asked Peter to pay the temple tax according to the Law. He also drove out the money changers and commercial activity from the temple to show that they were unacceptable.

yes you are right, he also magnified the commandments explaining for example that lust can be counted as adultery, the crimes of the spirit are also reprehensible. Yes Jesus was the example to follow.

Blessings.

The only reference to Yeshua's teaching is when He was answering the questions put to Him by the Scribes and Pharisees. His youth is mostly unknew to us. There are some theories out there though I wouldn't place a lot of credence in them.
However they do come from people that know way more about life back then than I hold. If you like I will place it here, and you can decide from there.
It is thought that from the list of given that Yeshua was teaching about the Law. As that was the top subject in the temple. However the exact nature, and topic are not know. This came from a friend of mine that is a member of the Sanhedrin. He spent his life in study of the sages, as well parts of the N.T. Though he wouldn't want that to get out. I know this doesn't help with what your asking, sorry. I am just not one to speculate with so little to go on.

We are under a new covenant in Christ alone (Luke 22:20).

Since the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant, was based on the book of the covenant (Exodus 24).

It logically follows, since the new covenant is based on the blood of the Christ. And not the blood of animals as
described in the old covenant (Exodus 24).

That there would be no requirement for a Christian to live under the old covenant.

Dual Covenant theology means what it says. Your under the old covenant and the new covenant.

Whereas New Covenant theology removes the old covenant, including the book of the covenant.

Of course the answer is yes, the old covenant is null and void.

Yet in many of His teachings, we do find that the Law was something Yeshua thought. In fact if we read Mat. chapter 5 it is centered on the law. Just as chapters 6 and 7 teach on the Law, though not in a direct manner as we find in 5. Also when Yeshua spoke with the religious leaders it was always about the law.
Let me ask you this, can you fit your understanding of Luke 16:16 in context with mat. 5:17-18? I would love to see how. Oh and keep in mind to pick just one word from Mat. to build your thesis doesn't work.

As you have given all non-answers to my direct question I really think you are trying to bate me into an argument. Yet I am will to play along.
Lets look at this New covenant from a Biblical view.

Jer 31:31¶Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

We find the same wording in Heb. 8:8-10. There is nothing here to say the Law was removed, just written in a different place, so that everyone knows it.
Did you know that the Abrahamic covenant is a blood covenant? One thing most people over look is that Abraham walked in the covenant that was pasted down to all his descendants. As a blood covenant it can't be removed. Doing so would make any hope of salvation impossible. How? For us to be given salvation it must come from haShem, and if He lied He sinned. As we know sin can only be forgiven in a spiritual manner from one that is without sin. As we should know HaShem is Holy, as His words are Holy.
One other thing that must be considered is Mat.5:17-18. Any time we wish to teach the Word, the first thing we MUST do is keep all scripture in agreement. If we look at one passage and it seems to nullify any other then the one useing said passage in said manner is wrong.

If we read all of Mark 2 we find that there is a vary real possibility, Yeshua was in Levies house.
As for John 1 there is no mention of a house at all. However as is made clear through out the gospels He was always on the move.
As to your idea that He had to keep working in Joseph's business, please show any Biblical text that backs this idea. Beside it doesn't really matter if He had a house or not, that holds no barring on His teachings, or faith.

True it does. In fact last night I was convicted in my heart for the way I was trying to do things. More or less reminded that I not in a class room, and the same manner of teachings simply doesn't apply here. So you will see a change in how I conduct my self here. Though I will not change the fact that I will call out anyone that wishes to twist what a person said into something it never was. Just as I will make it clear if anyone says one thing, then turns around to say the opposite.
I am not sure who has asked HaShem to open my eyes to how I conduct my self, yet I do thank them, and pray a blessing on them.