Your answers are too long, so I'm going to keep this short, because it doesn't take much to throw everything you're saying out the door.
You demonstrate your ignorance of the Scriptures, my friend. There is nothing that you can say to 'overthrow' what I have given you to consider, except for the fact that you are not even considering what you have been shown. That is bias defending, not truth seeking...
A simple answer should suffice, if you are right.
Again, you demonstrate ignorance not only of the Scriptures, but how to correctly interpret them. You cannot take one "simple" passage for any stand...for or against the point of the OP, or for or against any subject matter in the Scriptures...and for you to think that you can, demonstrates that ignorance. You do not know very much about Biblical Hermeneutics, do you?
Let us begin with one simple scripture, Jesus Christ said this,
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. (Matthew 5:17 [NIV])
So if Jesus Christ did not come to abolish the law, why do you teach that the law is abolished? You're teaching the opposite of this scripture.
Negative, young padowan. The FACT that I can produce (and have produced) 7 passages that clearly state that the law of Moses has been abrogated, and that you can only come up with one (which you are misinterpreting for your cause) that you *think* states otherwise...is evidence that you are arguing out of your bias rather than out of the Scriptures and their intended meaning.
Use the "long answer" excuse all you want to in effort to short circuit my posts, but you will fail nonetheless because you are in error. Paul theoretically shuts your mouth here...
Because as many as adhere to the works of the law of Moses are under a curse
: because it is written, "Cursed are all those who do not persevere in all that is written in the book of the law, to do them.
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
This is what you are telling people...and it is the same thing that others were saying that Paul was trying to save people from...
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved
But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."
As I state earlier which you evidently ignored, regarding the verse you consistently keep misinterpreting...
"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."
1. He had already fulfilled all the law, because if He had not, then He would not have been able to begin His Messianic ministry. He fulfilled all the law in His first 30 years of life...and if you disagree with that fact, then you have greater problems in your theology than you first appear to have.
2. Having already fulfilled all the law, He abrogated it when He inaugurated the New Covenant at His baptism; from that moment forward, all that He did was in teaching about the New Covenant kingdom of God. Again, if you disagree on that point, then you are in really deep water.
3. Jesus used the exact same teaching style which He utilized in addressing John the Baptist being the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy...
10 And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?"
11 He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things.
12 But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands."
13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.
The only difference between how Jesus taught here about John, and about how He came to fulfill the law, is that in the passage above He immediately explains, AFTER speaking about Elijah as if his coming was still future tense, He explained to them that "Elijah has already come." Understand?
If you understood covenanting in this manner, then you would understand that with the inauguration of the New Covenant, the Old was automatically disanulled...if it has not been, then the New Covenant can not come into authority, and we are all still in our sins, needing to daily sacrifice animals for our sins.
Again, you are a modern day Pharisee, and you are in great error.