Some things about the law that need explaining.

perhaps because Galatians 3 is written to Gentiles comprising the church?

Hebrews 8:8 cites Jeremiah 31:31 which mentions, 'house of Israel & house of Judah' -- there, continuing, Jeremiah 31:33 says in the famous 'My law in their hearts..' -- 'with the house of Israel' -- it does not mention Judah.

@Guojing do you think this means Judah doesn't receive Jeremiah 31:33-34 etc? because they aren't mentioned in that verse?
do you think God makes separate covenants with each, and maybe Israel's is better?

They don’t understad the mystery of Christ the Lord knows you Blik.

You are so right here’s the verse for those that oppose you (2 Thessalonians 2:11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

According to the law she should have been put to death.

Welcome to CC. Funny how you being new come in attacking people you do not even know.

Seems you have believed the lie that the commands are a seperate part of the law. and whenever the law is mentioned, it does not mean the commands (which is what they are basically saying)

Galatians 3 is not about the new covenant in Hebrews 8:8

God always see Israel as the 12 tribes, even when the nation was split up
1 Kings 18:31

Blik you have a very confused hermeneutical of the OT. From everything you have said, it seems to me that you believe that because the Old Covenant came first, it is therefore first in importance.

But the New Covenant is not dependent on works, keeping the law or obeying God. Of course, we we do try to do good works as Paul says in Eph. 2:8-10. But works cannot save us. Obeying God cannot save us, although we should always be reaching out to obey God. And we certainly do not have to keep any of the 613 OT laws, for all the people, or just the Levites and priests.

The Old Covenant has to be read through the eyes of the New Covenant. That means the OT has to be read with a firm foundation of faith in Christ, because he delivered us from sin and death, which fulfills not just the law, but all the OT prophecies.

You have it all wrong!! You lay a foundation in the law, and second comes Jesus. I believe your faith in Christ is enough! God always gives us the right amount of faith. But then you have added all this confusing mess of the OT, confusing everyone, including yourself.

At no point does the Bible urge NT believers to go back to the law. The Old Covenant has been washed away. I plead you to study the NT, and when you read the OT, to do it through the eyes of a born again believer, who puts Christ first, and interprets the OT in light of Jesus, and how he broke the power of sin and death.

One of the things that drew me to Christ was realizing that I could not keep the law, and I was a sinner going to hell. I was fortunate, in that so many people reached out and told me the gospel, their testimonies were many, but no one said I had to obey the law. We do have to repent. But boiling a goat in his mother's milk, or wearing a blend of cloth, or not sacrificing a lamb or a bird means I am going to be tempted with, or will send me to hell. Jesus set me free from my former wicked and sinful self. The Holy Spirit made me a new creature in Christ. I praise him for that.

No law or following it saved me. You are espousing a heresy. You have changed the gospel from
1 Corinthians 15, to one of your own making.

Plus, I hope you have noticed that not one person in this forum who know their Bible agree with you. I've read the OT from cover to cover over 50 times. God shows me something new every time I read it. The last couple of years, God has shown me Jesus in the OT. I guess I am looking for him more, too! I'm sure you have also read the OT many times. But you have not been listening and you are not hearing from the Holy Spirit, but some enemy leading you astray.

I'm praying for you to find your way back to the real gospel. And please take care of yourself during COVID.

SureAnd we can use this everytime someone commits a crime and we can get out of ever having to be responsible for punishing crime.

never said this or insinuated this

my point is if you are going to follow the law. you better follow all of it, just just follow the parts you do not like

The law said she should have been put to death, you can’t say yes she committed the sin of adultery, but the penalty does not need to be done because we are not under law anymore

its an all or nothing prospect

My point is you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't comprehend it.
But rather grabbed on to an aside and chased a rabbit.
Go back read my original post.

I read it fine. And my comment still stands.

if your going to say the law is helpful to us in showing us how to live you need to see the law as a hole. not cut up what you do not like

The law defines what is immoral.
So while we don't have the letter of the law, we do have the spirit of the law. By the law example I gave we know that as Christians that if we keep known dangerous animals we are responsible.
I could pull from the law many examples of civic ideas.

No, the law defines what is required To walk up to God under your own power

fail To live up to that standard, and you fail to earn your right to be in Gods presence.

while it gives some aspect of what is sin, as the pharisee learned, if we use it as a guide we will fail

it was given to lead us to Christ not show us how to live morally

If you keep dangerous animals, you are responsible for any harm they cause.
Adultery is still sin.
Theft; still sin
Murder; still sin.

The full adultery law requires BOTH adulterers to die...and yet only the woman was brought to be judged. If she was caught in the act of adultery, where was the man? How did the pharisees specifically know she was caught?

The Messiah said, "HE who is without sin cast the first stone." The context was THIS particular law on adultery.

They were all required to die right along with her, but were being partial with the law instead of keeping the whole of it...so they had no lawful right to judge her while breaking the law themselves.

"Judge not lest you be judged...by the same measure...Judge righteously."

The King alone had the right to judge her and all of them, but He chooses to give mercy and pardon her crime.

Yes

but I do not need the law to tell me this

thats my point

why can’t you comprehend this fact

who said the man was alive?
jesus point was even if they showed the man, let he who has no sin cast the first stone

So your saying if they brought the man, Jesus would have said stone them both?
say it is not so