>>/235/
Sure, but what he was talking about was the Body of Christ, which isn't a single assembly.
And the assembly itself isn't a brick and mortar building. It's any instance of two or more gathering together.
>>/241/
> Where do such communities exist then? Is there such a community that enforces the fast of unleavened bread to the strictest letter, while following Christ, that you can point out?
Literally search up "Hebrew Roots congregation" and you'll get a plethora of results.
> The Apocrypha is collectively a historical, geographical, chronological and theological train wreck that dilutes the inerrant and infallible books of the Bible
I'm not saying that Apocrypha are divinely inspired or canonical, dummy. Of course they're not. However, they are important historically, and give heed to what the Israelites practiced, which is why I'm using it as an example.
> If you're the latter (which you are) you need a pastor and church assembly to guide you. Period.
Again, whether you're in Norway, Sweden, China, or Timbuktu, you're still a part of the Church Invisible. You don't need some fat "pastor" or assembly to tell you what to do.
>>/243/
> It wasn't given to people before the flood whose imaginations were constantly evil
Literally an entirely different example. They were incredibly evil people who weren't guided by God at all, and in the end they were all wiped out. The Israelites weren't like them at all.
Something people often don't take into account is that there was an entire gap between Cain's death (the last thing that God commanded) and Noah's life. In-between that was the entire Antediluvian period. Ancient Israel (where the Law was enforced) wasn't so, God always intervened, until after Malachi.
> All have sinned. All have come short. None is righteous, not even one. Justified is somewhat different than righteous.
Of course. However, there's a Biblical definition of "righteous" applied to justified people like Abraham, and that's what I use here.
> You've failed to explain how is it out of context
< The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
Literally right after that, I explained why it is out of context.
> You are attacking an argument that Levitical Law is sinful which has not been made
Maybe I shouldn't have said "the Law isn't sin" after my argument there. Either way, Paul goes over this more clearly in Romans 7:7:9.
> This is what's written in the Law. He's not correcting rabbinical teachings that were not found in Torah. He is correcting Mosaic Law.
The Pharisees believed in a literal interpretation of the Law that was to be enforced, which would again mean "thou shalt not murder" is all you need to follow, or "thou shalt not commit adultery" means as long as you don't actually commit adultery, you're fine. You're saying that because he's attacking this literal interpretation, that the Law was a literal interpretation, and so Jesus is correcting the Law.
Again, just because he appears to be correcting the letter of the Law, doesn't mean he's correcting the Law itself! Jesus is saying that we must apply the principles behind the letter to the Law.
> He outright stops legally required judgement on an adulterous woman
Ah yes, this argument for the 8000th time. The Pharisees brought Jesus the woman, and ASKED HIM how to stone her. This is because if he said to stone her, he would be accountable for murder to the Romans, and because he said not to stone her, that he would break the Law. So he said that the first stone should be cast by the sinless Pharisee, and then later confronted the woman and told her to sin no more (and oh look, he's telling her not to sin i.e. NOT TO TRANSGRESS THE LAW).
In the end, it's Jesus's own atonement that paid for both the sins of the Pharisees and the adulterous woman, just like how animal sacrifices worked before.