One could interpret “forever/everlasting/perpetuity” as different than “until heaven and earth disappear”. Especially since there is a chronology of events that happen after heaven and earth fade away.
You could say that it's possible, but wasn't one of the roles of the heavenly bodies to control time? Either way, it would be hard for me to believe that to say that none of the law shall go away until heaven and earth disappear, and to have a vision of that exact scenario and terminology in Revelation 21 is just a coincidence.
Speaking of jots and tittles in Matthew 5:
“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” - Colossians 2:13-15 KJV
The jots and tittles of the law may be unremoved but they are covered (blotted) by Christ and nailed to the cross. The ordinances of the law are fulfilled by Christ.
Colossians 2:14
14 having erased
the charges that were brought against us, along with their obligations
that were hostile to us. He took
those charges away when he nailed them to the cross.
Again, this is speaking about the penalties for sin that the Messiah paid. Not the entire law. Christ came to "fulfill" the law means to "make it complete". Its church tradition that somehow turns that into meaning that the law goes away or changes when he dies.
Hebrews 7:12 is an example, but you disagreed with that interpretation in a different post without going into much explanation. Even if this is your interpretation that the “changing of the law” in Hebrews 7:12 somehow isn’t actually about “changing of the law”, it would be extraordinary to declare that it couldn’t or shouldn’t be interpreted this way.
In either case, I’ll shoot the question back your way: where does it say that some or all of the terms of the old “lease” apply in the new one? I already covered the everlasting covenant bit and we already discussed that some OT laws reappear in some way in the NT. How can we come to the conclusion that OT practices must be observed if they are not mentioned in the NT?
I think part of the problem is looking at this as two separate books... and what about the apocrypha? Is that the middle testament? The bible is a collection of writings by different authors at different times. And at the time of the Messiah, there was just different scrolls from different authors and no writings from the "new testament". He could have only taught from the law and the prophet scrolls. Even in the "new testament", there is so much of it (including Paul) that is just referencing and elaborating on "old testament" scriptures without people even realizing it.
One of the reasons many Jews today don't accept the Messiah is because they know that it is clear in the OT that God's law is forever and nobody has the authority to change that. So even if it's an incorrect interpretation of scripture, because modern Christianity is the largest representative of the bible... to them it appears the Jesus of the NT does not fit the role of the Messiah.
So there is many OT verses that say the law is forever... Mathew and Luke say its until heaven and earth disappear... I've posted many other verses in the NT that talk about keeping the law and commandments and it effecting our righteousness.
Specifically by passages, what disagreements between Paul and others do you perceive? You can even leave a post number if you’ve already described it. 3000+ posts is too much to sift through.
Most of Paul's passages I no longer think are disagreements between him and other authors, but are more so misinterpretations of his writings (Romans, some Galatians, some Collossians, etc.) There is a passage regarding Abraham that appears to contradict James, but I will have to look more into the Greek before drawing a conclusion. The passages are:
James 2:19-26
19 You believe that there is one God. That’s fine! Even the demons believe that and tremble with fear. 20
Do you want proof, you foolish person, that faith without actions is worthless? 21 Our ancestor
Abraham was justified by his actions when he offered his son Isaac on the altar, wasn’t he? 22 You see that
his faith worked together with what he did, and by his actions his faith was made complete. 23 And so the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” And so he was called God’s friend. 24
You observe that a person is justified through actions and not through faith alone. 25 Likewise, Rahab the prostitute was justified through actions when she welcomed the messengers and sent them away on a different road, wasn’t she? 26
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without actions is also dead.
Romans 4:1-6
4 What, then, are we to say about Abraham, our human ancestor? 2
For if Abraham was justified by actions, he would have had something to boast about—though not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to someone who works, wages are not considered a gift but an obligation. 5 However, to someone who does not work, but simply believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 Likewise, David also speaks of the blessedness of the person whom God regards as
righteous apart from actions:
So I will be looking more into those passages, the topic of circumcision, and there are a few other "weird" things about Paul.... Differences in his story regarding his trip to Damascus, his tribe and the term "ravenous wolf", and his relationship with the church of Ephesus. Just some things to look into.
The flipped side of that is what if you dedicated your life to not working for selfish aims. To not live materialistically or for personal gain. The concept that what you gain isn’t really yours (or whatever it is that you accumulate is for the purpose of functioning in a capacity to serve). If someone chose to live with this philosophy instead of just one day per week, would they be observing the Sabbath? They aren’t setting aside a day for the Sabbath, but they are respecting every day in the same light.
The Sabbath commandment in Exo just says not to work, or have anyone in your home work, and I believe the Messiah later helped clarify the difference between God's work and man's work. I'm not aware of anything that states that this is the only day we are to refrain from work.
I think Colossians 2:16’s reference to the Sabbath is just a straightforward reference to the Sabbath. I’m not sure how you could think it is saying anything else. You say its a misinterpretation, but you need evidence to substantiate that. More than just making claims on what you thought Paul meant. Especially since you’ve insinuated that Paul was a false prophet unless he agrees with your interpretation.
Part 3/3
I've addressed that verse (and surrounding) verses many times. Verse 16 is actually saying the exact opposite of what modern Christianity teaches. These were believers were trying to keep the sabbaths, new moons, and feast days and the people of Colossae (known for their asceticism) were judging them based on how they did that. There are some slight issues in translation that shows this for verse 16, but some verses a little further down also give it away:
Colossians 2:20-22
20 If you have died with the Messiah to the basic
principles of the world, why are you submitting
to its decrees as though you still lived in the world? 21 “Don’t handle this! Don’t taste or touch that!” 22 All of these things will be destroyed as they are used, because they are
based on human commands and teachings.
In many places in scripture there is a clear distinction between the commandments of men (human commands), and commandments of God. When the word "decrees" is used in scripture it tends to be speaking of man's law. The people of Colossae were judging the believers who were trying to keep God's law... based off of their man made laws. That is the context.
This same pattern you see all throughout scripture. This happened in Mark 7, Romans 14 and here.... People trying to keep the Father's law are being judged based off of man made laws.