The Historicity of Jesus - The Spread of Christianity in the 1st Century

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

but what passage allows you to parse the Law of Moses when the scripture is clear it is to be treated as a whole?

Joshua 1:7 “Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. 8 Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it.  Then you will be prosperous and successful. 9 Have I not commanded you?"

Dt 27:26 "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

Lev 18:5 "Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.  All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.

I've been on this forum for 10 years, and I have never treated the Law of Moses as anything other than a whole.  And I have also stated that the entire Law of Moses has been fulfilled by Christ and superceded by the New Covenant.

---

All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.

so, you're admitting that nothing in the bible gives you permission to parse the Law of Moses, and that therefore you have no basis in doing so?  In fact, you're admitting that you don't even trust the scriptures?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.

I've been on this forum for 10 years, and I have never treated the Law of Moses as anything other than a whole.  And I have also stated that the entire Law of Moses has been fulfilled by Christ and superceded by the New Covenant.

While I disagree with jmfcst regarding how some of the contents of the New Covenant are to be applied, he's entirely right on this, and that he admirably has never tried to pick and choose from the Mosaic Law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.

I've been on this forum for 10 years, and I have never treated the Law of Moses as anything other than a whole.  And I have also stated that the entire Law of Moses has been fulfilled by Christ and superceded by the New Covenant.

Understood.  You claim the whole of the Mosaic Law is superseded.  Problem is, this contradicts what the Old Testament says.

All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.

so, you're admitting that nothing in the bible gives you permission to parse the Law of Moses, and that therefore you have no basis in doing so?  In fact, you're admitting that you don't even trust the scriptures?

I don't consider anything written by Paul to be scripture.  The contradictions between what he wrote concerning the Mosaic Law and what is in the received Pentateuch are so great, that the only logical alternative is to believe that major errors are in the received Pentateuch.  Problem is, once one does that, if one claims major errors in the Pentateuch, then one has thrown out everything certain about the Judeo-Christian tradition, so that all one is left with is a bunch of unrigorous nonsense.  (Which might be fine for a Universalist, but not for me.)

[The Mikado]

I don't consider anything written by Paul to be scripture.  The contradictions between what he wrote concerning the Mosaic Law and what is in the received Pentateuch are so great, that the only logical alternative is to believe that major errors are in the received Pentateuch.  Problem is, once one does that, if one claims major errors in the Pentateuch, then one has thrown out everything certain about the Judeo-Christian tradition, so that all one is left with is a bunch of unrigorous nonsense.  (Which might be fine for a Universalist, but not for me.)

But...but...how does Christianity even work if you throw out Paul?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Understood.  You claim the whole of the Mosaic Law is superseded.  Problem is, this contradicts what the Old Testament says.

Contradicts the OT?!  The OT states point blank that the Law of Moses will be considered broken and superseded by a New Covenant:

Jer 31:31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
   “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
   and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
   I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
   to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
   though I was a husband to them,”
            declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
   after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
   and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
   and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
   or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
   from the least of them to the greatest,”
            declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
   and will remember their sins no more.”

---

I don't consider anything written by Paul to be scripture.

Well, if you reject that the Law of Moses was superseded, you have to throw out the ENTIRE NT, not just Paul’s writings.

Mat 26: 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins….Mat 27: 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.  51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Mark 14: 24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them…Mark 15: 38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Luke 22:20 “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”…Luke 23:45 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

The fact that the curtain of the Temple which hid the Holy of Holies, the most holy place in the OT church, the abode of the presence of God, where the blood was placed on the Ark of the Covenant on the Day of Atonement, demonstrated that the sacrificial system of the Law of Moses was over.

So, that’s 3 out of 4 Gospels…

---

…and here’s Johnny:

John 4: 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”  21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Jesus stated the true worshippers of God will no longer have to follow the Law of Moses and come to Jerusalem once a year – thus declaring that observance to the Feast of Tabernacles was no longer required of God’s people.

Then, in addition to the 12 letters of Paul and the 4 Gospels, you’d have to throw out the Book of Acts, because it approved of Paul…then you’d have to throw out the book of Hebrews because it states the whole Law of Moses has been superseded...and then you have to throw out the rest of the NT.

You will not find a single scripture, either in the OT or in the NT, which parses the Law of Moses.  Both OT and NT treat the Law of Moses as an indivisible unit.  And you certainly won’t find a passage which states only parts of the Law of Moses will be superseded.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ernest,

How in the world would Jewish Christians have a Temple or Tabernacle system of worship without the inner sanctuary called the Holy of Holies?! 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest,

How in the world would Jewish Christians have a Temple or Tabernacle system of worship without the inner sanctuary called the Holy of Holies?! 

How do Jewish Non-Christians handle it?  Simple, until the temple is restored, the sacrifices are on hold.   There were suspensions in the temple observances before the destruction of Herod's Temple during the periods when the Jews turned away from God.  Until they return to God, even if they were to observe the temple rites they would be of no value, which is why God has prevented them from occurring.  Only when God deems that the Jews have returned to God can the temple be restored.

I am not a hard supersessionist.  The passage you quote in Jeremiah is consistent with soft supersessionism, in which the new covenant is an addition to, not a replacement for the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. I do not see the rending of the veil as symbolic of the termination of the old covenants, but as a symbol that until the Jews returned to God, a return which necessarily includes their acceptance of Jesus, the temple rites were no longer of value. Works alone are insufficient if they are not done with the proper faith.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I don't consider anything written by Paul to be scripture.  The contradictions between what he wrote concerning the Mosaic Law and what is in the received Pentateuch are so great, that the only logical alternative is to believe that major errors are in the received Pentateuch.  Problem is, once one does that, if one claims major errors in the Pentateuch, then one has thrown out everything certain about the Judeo-Christian tradition, so that all one is left with is a bunch of unrigorous nonsense.  (Which might be fine for a Universalist, but not for me.)

But...but...how does Christianity even work if you throw out Paul?

All Paul wrote was a bunch of letters. The real meat is in the Gosepls and Revalation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What Christianity's official position was on a number of major doctrinal points wasn't really "settled" until the 6th century, either (it's only Christianity becoming the official faith of the Roman Empire in the 4th century that really begins the process of making those decisions, though certain heresies like Gnosticism were already in decline by that point).  My favorite example is always Origen, the third century theologian who was a strong proponent that even the obvious metaphorical language should be taken literally.  He saw the passage "There are eunuchs who became eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" and...well...became a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.

That was in Origen's youth. His theological work tended toward the reverse - to look for metaphorical meanings. He believed that the OT especially contained many absurdities, and things that would be immoral if taken literally, and concluded they pointed instead to spiritual truths.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.  All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.

How do you know it is the later statement that is false, rather than the former?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.  All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.

How do you know it is the later statement that is false, rather than the former?

Pauline Christianity asserts not only that the former is true but predicts its own beliefs, so the combination of the error being in the OT while the Pauline texts are correct cannot be logically held.  That both are in error would be logically consistent, but would make the Bible not particularly useful as a basis of religious belief.

Unlike Pauline Christianity, Islam asserts that the Biblical texts are corrupted and that is what caused God to give the Quran to Muhammad.  While logically consistent, I don't believe in Muhammad any more than I do Paul or Joseph Smith.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ernest,

How in the world would Jewish Christians have a Temple or Tabernacle system of worship without the inner sanctuary called the Holy of Holies?!  

How do Jewish Non-Christians handle it?  Simple, until the temple is restored, the sacrifices are on hold.  

You misunderstood my point – Matthew/Mark/Luke state that the veil tore, meaning that God’s presence is no longer to be found in the Holy of Holies, if it were still there, then the tearing of the veil would have killed everyone on the other side of the curtain (which was the purpose of the curtain to begin with).  So, if there is no longer any need for the Holy of Holies, then it doesn’t matter if the Temple is restored or not – there is simply nothing to restore for a Christian in regard to the Temple without the presence of God in the Holy of Holies.

Moreover, in the gospel of John, Jesus stated that we are now in a age where God’s worshippers are no longer required to go to Jerusalem – meaning its gonna be a tad difficult to go about the sacrifices in Jerusalem when God’s people aren’t even required to go to Jerusalem.  

But, in any case, I find this conversation quite illogical and unproductive...it doesn’t matter what the NT says, you’re going to stick to your view.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest,

How in the world would Jewish Christians have a Temple or Tabernacle system of worship without the inner sanctuary called the Holy of Holies?!  

How do Jewish Non-Christians handle it?  Simple, until the temple is restored, the sacrifices are on hold.  

You misunderstood my point – Matthew/Mark/Luke state that the veil tore, meaning that God’s presence is no longer to be found in the Holy of Holies, if it were still there, then the tearing of the veil would have killed everyone on the other side of the curtain (which was the purpose of the curtain to begin with).  So, if there is no longer any need for the Holy of Holies, then it doesn’t matter if the Temple is restored or not – there is simply nothing to restore for a Christian in regard to the Temple without the presence of God in the Holy of Holies.

While we agree that the rending of the veil signifies that God's presence left the Holy of Holies, we profoundly disagree on the reason why, and whether there will be a time He deems it proper to return.

Going off on a tangent, are you one of those who believe that a Temple rebuilt by non-Christian Jews is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ?  (While you've probably answered this before, I don't recall your answer.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

While we agree that the rending of the veil signifies that God's presence left the Holy of Holies, we profoundly disagree on the reason why, and whether there will be a time He deems it proper to return.

well, considering it tore at the moment of Christ's death, it has everything to do with the New Covenant instituted by the death of Christ, which is exactly what he stated during the Last Supper - "take this and drink it, this is the blood of the new covenant"

and another point – I have repeatedly ignored your attempts to claim I am saying ALL previous covenants of God were superseded by the New Covenant….but I have NEVER made that argument, rather I am only referring to the Law of Moses (the covenant made at Mt Sinai) .

---

Going off on a tangent, are you one of those who believe that a Temple rebuilt by non-Christian Jews is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ?  (While you've probably answered this before, I don't recall your answer.)

Yep, for that is the location from where the antichrist will be ruling when Christ returns, and will be the location where Christ will rule during his 1000 year reign on earth.

Zechariah 14:16 “Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.  If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, they will have no rain.”

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

another point – I have repeatedly ignored your attempts to claim I am saying ALL previous covenants of God were superseded by the New Covenant….but I have NEVER made that argument, rather I am only referring to the Law of Moses (the covenant made at Mt Sinai) .

So you believe that Jews still need to circumcise?  I was under the impression that you thought they did not, yet circumcision is part of the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Mosaic one.

Going off on a tangent, are you one of those who believe that a Temple rebuilt by non-Christian Jews is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ?  (While you've probably answered this before, I don't recall your answer.)

Yep, for that is the location from where the antichrist will be ruling when Christ returns, and will be the location where Christ will rule during his 1000 year reign on earth.

Zechariah 14:16 “Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.  If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, they will have no rain.”

How do you reconcile Zechariah 14:16 with the passage you quoted earlier from John 4?

John 4: 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”  21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Jesus stated the true worshipers of God will no longer have to follow the Law of Moses and come to Jerusalem once a year – thus declaring that observance to the Feast of Tabernacles was no longer required of God’s people.

Though I would want more time to study the passages in question before asserting that this is how they should be resolved, at first glance I can reconcile the two passages by having John 4:21 refer to the upcoming period of the temple interregnum that began with Christ's death on the cross, not to a permanent cessation of the temple rituals.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

another point – I have repeatedly ignored your attempts to claim I am saying ALL previous covenants of God were superseded by the New Covenant….but I have NEVER made that argument, rather I am only referring to the Law of Moses (the covenant made at Mt Sinai) .

So you believe that Jews still need to circumcise?  I was under the impression that you thought they did not, yet circumcision is part of the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Mosaic one.

Christ is now the one doing the circumcision, as was prophesied in the Law of Moses:

Deut 30:6 “The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”

---

How do you reconcile Zechariah 14:16 with the passage you quoted earlier from John 4?
 

The context of Zechariah 14:16 is clearly AFTER Christ is physically ruling from Jerusalem (post church age), and the context of John 4 of not having to go up to Jerusalem is a statement regarding the Church Age.

Surely, you are aware of this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How do you reconcile Zechariah 14:16 with the passage you quoted earlier from John 4?
 

The context of Zechariah 14:16 is clearly AFTER Christ is physically ruling from Jerusalem (post church age), and the context of John 4 of not having to go up to Jerusalem is a statement regarding the Church Age.

Then for once, we are in general agreement, tho we definitely differ on the details.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How do you reconcile Zechariah 14:16 with the passage you quoted earlier from John 4?
 

The context of Zechariah 14:16 is clearly AFTER Christ is physically ruling from Jerusalem (post church age), and the context of John 4 of not having to go up to Jerusalem is a statement regarding the Church Age.

Then for once, we are in general agreement, tho we definitely differ on the details.

Except for two facts:

1) Zech has the GENTILES coming to Jerusalem and celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles AFTER the Church Age…yet you say the Jews, and only the Jews, are suppose to keep those feasts DURING the Church Age, when that is both physically (there is no Temple) and theologically (the veil has been torn from the onset of the Church Age) impossible.

2) My view (shared by 99% of Christianity) is in agreement with the NT…and you are admittedly and purposely in disagreeing with the NT.

---

Also, don’t you find it a bit ironic that you have walked way way out on a limb, basically by yourself, opposing much of the NT and 99% of Christianity, yet you were caught off guard by the passages I referenced?:

Though I would want more time to study the passages in question before asserting that this is how they should be resolved…

It’s as if you are a purposely hundreds of miles away from civilization, claiming you know exactly where you are…then along comes some random hiker who points out that you have your map upside down and you respond, “Oh, thanks, I never noticed that…but I can assure you, I still know where I am!”

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Zech has the GENTILES coming to Jerusalem and celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles AFTER the Church Age…yet you say the Jews, and only the Jews, are suppose to keep those feasts DURING the Church Age, when that is both physically (there is no Temple) and theologically (the veil has been torn from the onset of the Church Age) impossible.

No, not during the present time, since we are in a temple interregnum, as has happened before.

By your argument, the need to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles ended with the destruction of the First Temple, since they were impossible, and yet they resumed.  We are in a temple interregnum and we do not and will not know when the interregnum shall end and the feasts called for in the Mosaic covenant shall resume.

Also, don’t you find it a bit ironic that you have walked way way out on a limb, basically by yourself, opposing much of the NT and 99% of Christianity, yet you were caught off guard by the passages I referenced?

I haven't had the chance to study the minor prophets in detail.  I've focused my energies to date on the core portions of both the Old and New Testament, the Torah and the Gospels, as without them there can be no firm foundation.  I'll get to the superstructure when I have time.  Our conversations here caused me to start a careful review of the Bible so as to put my beliefs into better definition, starting with Genesis, but in the past few months I've only gotten as far as Leviticus.  It's tempting to just bypass the temple rituals as they aren't something I expect will resume in my lifetime (tho I could be wrong), but I'm giving it all the same level of detail that I did the the earlier parts that were more interesting to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It’s as if you are a purposely hundreds of miles away from civilization, claiming you know exactly where you are…then along comes some random hiker who points out that you have your map upside down and you respond, “Oh, thanks, I never noticed that…but I can assure you, I still know where I am!”

Well the choice of which direction on a map is up is fairly arbitrary, and even now is North is not always on top.  Indeed, for a map of a hiking trail, which direction is up generally depends on which direction you are following the trail.  Since a random hiker encountered on such a trail is more likely going in the opposite direction, I wouldn't be surprised that said hiker thinks my map is upside down, since for him it would be.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Zech has the GENTILES coming to Jerusalem and celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles AFTER the Church Age…yet you say the Jews, and only the Jews, are suppose to keep those feasts DURING the Church Age, when that is both physically (there is no Temple) and theologically (the veil has been torn from the onset of the Church Age) impossible.

No, not during the present time, since we are in a temple interregnum, as has happened before.

By your argument, the need to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles ended with the destruction of the First Temple, since they were impossible, and yet they resumed.  We are in a temple interregnum and we do not and will not know when the interregnum shall end ...

Whoa, there, you’re muddying the waters.

During the religious “economy” of the Law of Moses (prior to Christ’s death), the Feast of Tabernacles was a feast for the Jews, not Gentiles…(that is DIFFERENT than Zech 14:16 which has all the nations observing the Feast of Tabernacles.)

Once Christ died, a new spiritual “economy” was instituted (the New Covenant), which superseded the ENTIRE Law of Moses and made it so that NO ONE had to go to Jerusalem to worship (John 4:21), as the Spirit of God was no longer in the Holy of Holies (the veil was torn).  Instead, the Holy Spirit is available to believers of any race, located in any nation.  In order to demonstrate that the Temple was no longer needed, God had it destroyed in 70AD.

In the run up to Christ’s return, the Temple will be rebuilt by the Jews (but NOT by Christians, who have no need for it), and the Antichrist come and rule from the Temple, proclaiming himself to be God.  Upon the return of Christ, at the end of the Church Age and marking the beginning of his 1000 year reign, the Antichrist will be destroyed and Jesus will cleanse the Temple.

After cleansing the Temple, Christ will establish his earthly dominion and yet another religious “economy” will be instituted:  Jesus himself will be ruling from Jerusalem, life spans of humans will be increased, the vegetarian diet prior to Noah which Adam had will be brought back (which is NOT the Law of Moses, but rather is pre-Law), the Gentile survivors will journey to Jerusalem to celebrate and bring into reality what was always symbolized in the Feast of Tabernacles.

---

But you have the whole timeline mixed up since you believe the Law of Moses is in effect for Jews during the Church Age, which is why you have to reject much of the NT  and you’ve concocted an elaborate conspiracy to explain how Paul supposedly overthrew the original church leadership.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also, don’t you find it a bit ironic that you have walked way way out on a limb, basically by yourself, opposing much of the NT and 99% of Christianity, yet you were caught off guard by the passages I referenced?

I haven't had the chance to study the minor prophets in detail.  I've focused my energies to date on the core portions of both the Old and New Testament, the Torah and the Gospels, as without them there can be no firm foundation.

So, just to be clear:  you are a Christian who rejects the arguments of the NT regarding the superseded of the Law of Moses, because you believe you know more than the early church authors of the NT about God’s intentions…yet you haven’t even read the entire bible, much less made a working model of what the bible says.

What, exactly, started you down this path?  Did you just wake up one morning and decide, “Hey, even though I haven’t read the bible, I’m going to oppose the NT and invent a conspiracy to explain it”?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, don’t you find it a bit ironic that you have walked way way out on a limb, basically by yourself, opposing much of the NT and 99% of Christianity, yet you were caught off guard by the passages I referenced?

I haven't had the chance to study the minor prophets in detail.  I've focused my energies to date on the core portions of both the Old and New Testament, the Torah and the Gospels, as without them there can be no firm foundation.

So, just to be clear:  you are a Christian who rejects the arguments of the NT regarding the superseded of the Law of Moses, because you believe you know more than the early church authors of the NT about God’s intentions…yet you haven’t even read the entire bible, much less made a working model of what the bible says.

I've read the whole bible, I just haven't read it with the rigor I'm applying now so as to be able to better answer questions others have about my beliefs and so as to be more thorough in the details of my beliefs.  So far, what I have reexamined (not examined for the first time as you would have it) has confirmed my beliefs.  I would say that the most interesting thing I have gleaned so far from my more detailed reading is that the tabernacle layout has correspondences to the placement of the cherubim and flaming sword that guarded the east of Eden after the expulsion of Adam and Eve.  This indicates to me that the tabernacle layout was not created ex nihilo, but was based upon earlier arrangements not described in detail in the Bible.

What, exactly, started you down this path?  Did you just wake up one morning and decide, “Hey, even though I haven’t read the bible, I’m going to oppose the NT and invent a conspiracy to explain it”?

Would you knock off the conspiracy nonsense that you keep bringing up on your own?  I neither need nor use a conspiracy to explain why Pauline Christianity became the dominant form of Christianity.  That rise was a natural outcome of the devastation of the Judaic Christian communities as a byproduct of the Jewish Revolts.