Well, that as a great thought-out reply. But Protestant Christianity (gentiles) have never been and never will be under the Mosaic law. this is my point. It's fine if people want to incorporate the law into their lives but Jesus nor anyone else in the New Testament is commanded to do so. It is simply not a part of christianity.
It is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (
Romans 3:20), so if Gentiles have never been under the Mosaic Law, then Gentiles have never needed to refrain from sin, have never needed to repent from sin, have never needed salvation from sin, have never needed the Gospel message, have never needed faith, have never needed faith, and have never needed Jesus to have given himself to redeem us from all lawlessness.
Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and he commissioned his disciples to teach to the nations everything that he taught them. Christianity is about following what Christ taught, not about refusing to follow Christ.
The Abrahamic covenant is NOT the mosaic covenant.
I did not say that it was, though they are in accordance with each other. They are both made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore any instructions that God has given for how to embody His character traits are eternally and cumulatively valid.
Your position is a heretical position that attempt to place Christians under the Mosaic Law of Israel. Please tell me where in these verses it includes Christians or gentiles.
In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that came up out of Egypt with them, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai. Likewise, in Joshua 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born. In Ephesian 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ, alienated from Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in this world, which is in accordance with Gentiles at one time not being doers of the Mosaic Law, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, which is in accordance with Gentiles becoming doers of the Mosaic Law. The New Covenant was only made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel (Jeremiah 31:33), so it is only through becoming joined to Israel through faith in Christ that Gentiles are able to partake of the New Covenant. Israel was given the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations, but would you prefer it if the light and the blessing was just for Israel?
"For sin shall not have dominion over you: FOR YE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because WE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, but under grace? God forbid."
Romans 6:14-15, KJV
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become DEAD TO THE LAW by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."
Romans 7:4, KJV
Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is alway important to be careful to discern which law he was referring to. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which he served with his flesh, and he said that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from the law of sin and death, so its should at least be worth considering whether those verses are referring to one of these categories of law or to a different category that Paul spoke about.
Paul spoke about the Law of God as being the good that he wanted to do and the law of sin as being something that was hindering him from doing the good that he wanted to do. In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that he was not under as being a law where sin had dominion over him, which is clearly not referring to the Law of God that is the good that he wanted to do, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Romans 6:15, Paul said that being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under the Law of God. Moreover, everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obedience to God and against sin, so there is nothing that suggest that we are no longer under the Law of God and are free to become doers of what it reveals to be sin.
In regard to Romans 7:4, it wouldn't make any sense to interpret that as saying that we need to die to what Christ taught in order to be unified with him or that we need to die to God's Word in order to be unified with God's word made flesh, but rather we need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God. Likewise, it would not make sense to think that we need to die to God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to be free to bear fruit for Him, but rather we need to die to the law of sin that was hindering us from bearing fruit for God.
You would greatly benefit if you actually understood the mosaic law. It cannot be performed in the first place, there is no temple, not Levitical priesthood and no sacrifices... This is the problem SDA and Hebrew roots among others fail to understand.... its actually laughable if it wasn't such a damaging heresy to the Christian nation. You all use the exact same verses to defend the presupposition, and you change word definitions and create false context that is not biblical to defend the position. You have to flip the clear meaning of more than 40 verses from Paul. And pretty much rip out Galatians from the bible.
The condition for the Israelites to return to the land after they had been exiled to Babylon was to first return to obedience to the Mosaic Law, which contains laws in regard to Temple practice that could no longer be obeyed because the Temple had just been destroyed, so when there are laws that no longer have their conditions men, then we should nevertheless be faithful to follow Christ's example of obedience to the laws that we can obey.
If you want to accuse me of something, then by all means please make the case for it instead of offering bluster. I quoted the only definition that the NAS Greek Lexicon lists that is specifically in regard to fulfilling the law, which fits with what Jesus immediately proceeded to do after he said that he came to fulfill the law, which fits with how other verses use it, and which fits with how other Jewish texts use it, while you use a definition that contradicts how Jesus used it, which contradicts how other verses use it, and which contradicts how other Jewish texts use it, and which makes Jesus out to be a false prophet.
In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet is if they speak against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if you consider Jesus and the Apostles to be servants of God, then you are taking the position that it is incorrect to interpret them as speaking against obeying the Mosaic Law and if you think that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Mosaic Law, then you are taking the position that they are false prophets. So you are the one who is taking the position that Galatians should be ripped out of the Bible while I am taking the position that it should be kept in the Bible.
My guess is you cannot see that this is why you believe this heresy.
By all means please explain why the position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded should be considered to be heresy, or if it is heresy, then please explain why we all shouldn't be heretics.
