This is a tough nut to crack. I did a bible study a few years back on Exodus and this was never discussed.
I know the Jewish people still observe circumcision and the dietary laws. Maybe after Jesus died some laws did not carry over to the New Testament?
Hebrews 10:8-9 says Jesus “takes away the first, that he may establish the second”…
Hebrews 7:12 “When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well.”
What is your evidence for this assumption?
I would say it is almost certainly not the case, because one of the parts of the Law that they decided should apply is “sexual immorality”, which has nothing to do with dietary laws or circumcision.So it seems pretty clear that they were considering more than merely keeping kosher.
Notice also that the passage from Mark I quoted earlier was triggered by a discussion of why the disciples did not wash their hands before eating - also something apart from the laws of kosher. There are other passages where Jesus specifically mentions the traditions of His day of washing everything, and makes the same distinction discussed here - moral vs. ceremonial (Matt. 15, Mark 7). In each instance Jesus says in essence ‘you do thus and so, yes it fuffills the Mosaic law, but you are missing the point, which is that moral behavior is important and kosher isn’t’.
And yet that is exactly what the Acts passage reports - they say ““…it is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours too, that we will not lay upon you (gentile converts) any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary”. The prohibitions listed are the only parts of the Mosaic Law Gentiles have to worry about.
They are doing, IOW, exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. They are not saying “you have to obey all the Mosaic Law except diet and circumcision”, they are saying "you do not have to obey any of the Mosaic law except eating blood, meat sacrificed to idols, and sexual immorality’. And even the part about meat and blood didn’t stick.
That’s the moral part of the law. Yes, they definitely had to keep that. But there was never any question about that - much of the focus of Jesus’ teaching was that the important part of the law was the moral part.
This also was not a particularly new idea - there was a class of people in Israel called the “God-fearers” who were Gentile semi-converts to Judaism - they obeyed the moral part of the law and were monotheists, but they did not keep kosher, were not circumcised, and did not obey the rest of the law either. The centurion whose servant Jesus healed is thought to have been one of those - the Pharisees mentioned that he had donated a lot of money to build their synagogue. So was Cornelius in Acts 10 - many of the earliest Gentile converts to Christianity were like that.
You will have to take that up with the liberals - they are pretty insistent about it.
Regards,
Shodan
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
Unless you’re calling Jesus a liar, yes, you have to obey the old testament.
I suppose the question is what “law” is being talked about.
As previously noted, the OT clearly differentiates between matters that are as it were issues of the “covenant” between the Hebrews and their God, and those laws which are morally binding on all folks no matter who they were.
The latter, more limited set are the so-called “Noahide” laws. I dunno if this is what Jesus was talking about in the Gospels, but it wouldn’t be a stretch, assuming for the purpose of argument that the “jesus” of the NT was talking to more than just Jews (I use “jesus” in quotes to underline the fact that what is attributed to Jesus may well be mythological).
As I mentioned…”…otherwise some of the other things would have been mentioned.”
Actually, this part I agree with you. They did mention the “sexual immorality” thing…but I rather suspect that since Paul was in the group…and since Paul seemed almost obsessed with the “sexual thing”…it may well have been done at his insistence rather than because of any specific discussion of it. But it was mentioned…and I give you that.
In any case, it is one of those “morality” aspects of the Law…and those happen to be the ones I am interested in, because it is in the area of the morality issues that this problem arises in discussions with Christians trying to divorce themselves from the god Jesus worshipped. And that is what this discussion really is about.
But it should be noted that the elders did not say that gentile converts had to follow the parts of the Mosaic Laws that dealt with stealing, murder, and lying…but I doubt you are suggesting Christians are free to disregard those elements of the law. I think it is obvious they were merely exempting gentile converts from those “unnecessary burdens”…mostly circumcision and dietary restrictions. The other aspects of the Law, they certainly meant to be imposed.
Shodan…as I mentioned up above…this issue never raises its ugly face when Christians are discussing why they can eat pork or why they do not have to wash their hands under certain circumstances. It doesn’t arise when we are discussing why Christians do not observe Kosher laws…which in fact, almost never come up.
Usually, it comes up when “moral” issues are raised…and I think you know that.
Let’s deal with that, because that is the relevant issue.
Okay…but what moral laws are Christians exempt from observing?
If you think this is more accurate than my take…you have got to be saying that the gentile converts do not have to observe the moral laws other than sexual immorality. I know you are not doing that…so why are you insisting on this?
I am willing to acknowledge that when I said “deal only with circumcision and dietary restrictions” I probably should have phrased it differently. I thought it was obvious what I was saying, but apparently not. I am saying…and any honest assessment of where I have been on this subject leads you to: Gentiles were required to observe Mosaic Laws…but the “unnecessary burden”…namely circumcision and dietary restrictions (and perhaps a few other small, meaningless things) were not to be used by the Jewish community to exclude gentiles from inclusion.”
If that makes you feel any better…go with that. If you want that further revised to get to wherever you want to be…I am willing to do that also.
Essentially I am saying that when Christians say the Law no longer applies…they are over-stating the case. They are not talking about whether they have to wsh their hands or keep separate dishes for differnt foods…or any of that stuff. They are talking about the moral issues. And I am saying that the “do’s and don’t’s” stay in place. The items the god indicates pleases him (groveling in front of him, for the most part) and the items the god indicates offend him (damn near everything else humans do) STAY IN PLACE.
Thank you…and that, despite the deficiencies of my presentation, is where I have always been headed. The moral part of the Law stays in place…the window dressing is the only stuff that goes out the door.
Not sure how you get to this from where we have been. Certainly the “homosexual conduct” IS part of the moral aspect of the Law. I have my guesses about how it got into the Law, but it is not part of any other aspect but the moral one as mentioned in the Bible. If you are a Christian who worships the god Jesus worshipped…there is no doubt whatsoever how the god feels about homosexual conduct. He considers it to be an abomination…worthy of summary capital punishment. And if you are a Christian who worships the god Jesus worshipped…there is no doubt whatsoever how the god feels about slavery. He considers buying, selling, and owning slaves to be completely moral.
Which, of course, leads to my ever present question:
Why would anyone who guesses there is a GOD…possibly want this god to be their GOD; why would they allow the GOD they suppose to exist…to be described this way?
Whether some of this stuff was meant only for the ancient Hebrews…or for all of humanity…
…the same questions I just asked remain!
The really interesting question is why, if Jews have to follow the minutae of the arcane code in the OT, whereas non-Jews can be just as righteous if they follow the Noahide laws, what’s in it for the Jews? Unlike Christians, they aren’t promised heaven for believing.
There isn’t much of an answer to this, other than a deal is a deal and our ancestors agreed to it. 
The law has been replaced by the personal relationship with God, we are no longer slaves (to a hard written code, with penalties), but just are to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Now if God has you under a earthly authority, and such a authority imposes laws/rules, you are suppose to follow, unless the Father overrules that, which is very possible.
But there is no law, and no penalty imposed for breaking the law - this is what Jesus dies for, to set us free of the written code.
It includes ALL laws. Don’t let any law get in the way of doing the work of the Lord. God sets us free so we can do His work unencumbered. We are working for the King of the universe, what secular authority has any ability to supersede the King?
Kinda a version of, “How come the Promised Land is the only land without oil?” 
For certain the ancient Hebrews had good reason for supposing a god like the one they described in the Bible. They were an intelligent people…and their enemies were many. They needed a ruthless, hard-assed god who would only act on their behalf if a ruthless, hard-assed price were exacted.
The deal makes sense in the light of what each side got out of it!
Always back to my questions: Why, considering the nature of the god, would anyone want to try to morph it into a kind, gentle, loving, even-tempered, forgiving god?
What kind of thinking goes into doing that?
As I think I have mentioned a few times, they weren’t talking about that aspect of the law - there was never any question that everyone had to obey the moral law. Jews, Gentiles, God-fearers - all of them. The only thing they were discussing was if Gentile Christians had to keep the ceremonial part of Jewish law circumcision, eating kosher, washing their hands and the vessels they used, etc.
Not any of the ceremonial or civic parts - otherwise, as you say, they would have mentioned those parts.
My experience is otherwise. There was even an episode of The West Wing that did the “if you are going to argue against homosexuality why don’t you keep kosher” thing that went about in an e-mail a while back.
None, as I think I have mentioned eight or ten times.
I have not said this, I do not intend to say this. No one in the thread has said this. I have stated more than once that I do not believe this.
I have a feeling that you have an argument that only works if someone says this. If so, you are S.O.L.
The moral ones? Sure. The ceremonial ones? Nope.
Keeping in mind what I have already said a couple of times - Jesus said that the greatest and first commandment (meaning the most important moral rule) was “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength”, and that the second most important commandment was like the first one - “you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself”. And the guy He was talking with in one version of the story - an expert in Mosaic law - agreed that these two commandments were more important than the system of sacrifices set up im Mosaic law.
The passage is Mark 12:28-34. Cite.
Diogenes the Cynic would disagree with you there - he has been very insistent that the passages in Leviticus (and the New Testament) do not establish a general prohibition against homosex.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s simple cultural evolution over time.
As a liberal Christian, I must say Shodan has been answering the questions fairly.
This is it. Everything else in the Bible needs to be interpreted with this in mind.
If forced to stand on one foot …
That’s not what Jesus said.
He doesn’t follow the words of Jesus-he follows the legend of Jesus.
Jesus does say that not one iota or apex from the law (ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου) shall perish (παρέλθῃ) until all is accomplished (πάντα γένηται).
There are three points worth considering in the text: (1) The emphasis is on the written text–the “iota” and “dot”–of the νόμον–a word which in the GNT often refers to the Mosaic law. In the next verse the word is ἐντολῃ, well translated as “commandment” but also of a somewhat different character than the more general νόμον (I’m not saying the word isn’t used to refer to parts of the OT law, but it is undoubtedly a different word); (2) using “perish” here places the emphasis on the perseverence of the law, rather than Jesus’s desire to avoid it’s destruction; it could be easily read the same way as Jesus’ comment “you will always have the poor among you” (Mk 14:7)–not as a recommendation but as a statement of fact; (3) “all is accomplished” can refer to the end of all things/the world (other idioms are more often used in Koine to mean this, but it’s possible) or to the end of his mission on earth.
I don’t mean to belabor the text so much, but the point is it can be fairly (but, I agree, not definitively) interpreted to mean Jesus was changing at least the status of the Mosaic law. And since this notion more neatly matches up with his actions (Jesus is constantly ridiculing the Pharisees for their hidebound legalism), Christians have IMO fairly interpreted it this way. As others have pointed out, many other portions of the NT would be hard to reconcile with the idea that Jesus advocated keeping the OT law. Christians, of course, have found many ways to explain logical inconsistencies, but in this case at least the original Koine offers them some justification.
Like China!
We don’t follow Communism, we follow the legend of Communism!
John 8:36
So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Not a bad analogy at all.