>>91
>Acts 15
I didn't even mention it. I'm talking about Paul's own epistles here, which we'll get into:
>Within Galatians 5:2-3, Paul emphasizes that circumcision will cause Christ to cease being of any value, and then goes on to say that whoever goes through with circumcision is obligated to follow the whole law: portraying following the whole law in a negative light
How ridiculous. Paul is saying in Galatians 5 that the Judaisers going through with circumcision there were looking to the Law as a form of salvation itself. Again, you're not saved by the Law, you're saved by Christ.
Meanwhile, in his Epistle to the Romans (which is otherwise all about salvation through faith in Christ) he specifically states that the Law isn't a yoke of slavery, it isn't bad.
<Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
<Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Also, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (which supports Sola Scriptura), when Paul refers to Scripture, he isn't referring to the Gospels, because they weren't even all written down around the time he was writing. He's talking about the Old Testament!
>Christ fulfilled the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law. That was literally the entire point of his existence on Earth.
If he "fulfilled" the Law in that sense, then Paul wouldn't have continued observing it himself, he never would've said it's still holy and just.
>The New Testament is about moving beyond the Mosaic Law, not reinforcing Gentiles having to LARP as Bronze Age and Second Temple Israelites
No, it's about salvation which isn't through the Law, it's through faith alone via God's grace alone.
> Especially considering many of the more questionable practices of the Pharisees/Saducees/etc. were the fruit of Second Temple Judaism, as well as Mosaic legalism taken to it's logical conclusion (not to mention some practices that were clearly the product of intermingling Hellenism.)
Perhaps, but Pharisees and Sadducees aren't the only such groups during the Second Temple period.
>Everything points to the Second Temple as something to leave behind. So much so that God literally sanctioned it's destruction in 70 AD. I think you should take the hint.
It is something to leave behind as the true temple is now found within Christ. But the faith itself is something to keep.