I wrote this in HTML, which does not translate to the forum fully.  If you want a more readable version see http://www.execpc.com/~dangregg/note51.html
 

    "I understand that you believe there is complete continuity between the Mosaic covenant and the New covenant. You seem to hold that this continuity requires that Christians today must adhere to the Torah (to the extent they
understand this obligation). All parts of the Torah continue, including the sacrificial system when/if it is reinstated.

Questions:

1. Is my understanding correct?"

        Yes, your understanding is correct, except that the "new covenant" is the "renewed covenant."

"2. It seems clear that the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) held that the entire Mosaic law was not applicable to Gentile
believers; only a few dietary and sexual restrictions were endorsed. Do you believe this was a mistake?"

      The Jerusalem council was called upon to decide if keeping the Law was necesary for Salvation.  In other words, do the new converts have to learn the law first before they are assured of salvation, or do they merely have to certify their willingness to repent.  The council decided that the latter was the case  -- as the scriptures had always taught.  The decisions  of the council (1) No idolatry, (2) No immorality, (3) No blood consumption,  show that they would not consider any claim to faith valid if these practices were continued.
    The omissions of the council concerning more advanced morality also demonstrate the point that they were only concerned with minimum standards required for recognition of a valid profession of faith.
     The dietary restrictions were included because God made it clear as far back as Noah that he would not tolerate the consumption of blood;  this reflects the relative importance of the command.

"3. I understand the law to be a self-revelation of God's character in a particular historical and cultural context. There is much we learn from it and the moral principles continue, but the administration is not proscriptive today. Gal 3:2-25
says: "Before this faith came, we were held prisoner by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law
was put in charge to lead us us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer
under the supervision of the law." (In fairness, the words "supervision of the law" are not used in Greek; however, it
uses the same word in v.25 [paidagwgos, trainer] translated as "put in charge" in v.24. The parallel cannot be denied:
the law has become a trainer -> we are no longer under a trainer.) What is the basis for the claim that God intends the
law to apply to all peoples for all times? "

     I  would say that whatever God commands is moral.  There is no such thing as a divine directive that is "amoral."   Yayshua said, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 5:19a).
    I will show the corrections in the verses you quoted necessary to harmonize Paul with previous relevation:  "Before this faithfulness  came, we were held prisoner under a norm, locked up until faithfulness should be revealed. So the norm was put in charge to lead us us to Christ that we might be righted by faithfulness. Now that faithfulness has come, we are no longer under a custodian."
     The faithfulness is the "faithfulness of Yayshua" in providing atonement for sins (Gal. 2:16).  The norm is the judgment of the law (Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10).  The paidagwgos is the same as the norm -- the condemning function of the law.  It is the "norm" (or custom) because it is what applies to most people on this earth most of the time.  The faithful in Yayshua are not under the norm --- the law does not condemn us -- it only instructs us.
     I don't disagree with the parallelism you point out.  It is simply that "nomos" in Greek means "custom," or "norm" before it means "law."  Paul said that the knowledge of sin came through the law  --- he also said not to sin.  So he was in agreement that the law applies.  Of course, if you had been brought up on the Law and the Prophets, you would not use Paul as the foundation.  The Law provides its own foundation.

   "This continues the thought in question 3. Hebrews 8 deals with the relationship between Jesus and the Levitical
priesthood. Referring to the promise of a new covenant in Jer. 31:31-34, Heb. 8:13 says: "By calling this covenant
'new,' he has made the first one obselete [lit. old]; and what is obsolete [lit. made old] and aging will soon disapear [lit.
is near vanishing]." How do you understand Heb. 8:13?"

    Exactly the same way you do;  And I will throw in another witness,  "He taketh away the first that he may establish the second."  Unlike Paul, Hebrews cannot be harmonized without mangling the Greek and the context of the book.  But Paul did not write Hebrews (see Heb. 2:3).  The book was widely rejected in the first four centuries.
   Also we have a glaring contradiction of the law in Hebrews. 10:4 and 9:3-4, as well as its rejection of any validity for the Levitical Priesthood or sacrifices -- which is a direct  irreconcilable contradiction to Jeremiah 33:17-26.   So in short the book fails primary tests for canonization.  There were Jews who rejected the Jerusalem Temple and the Levitical sacrifices offered there. The were called Essenes.

 "Gal. 2:21 reads: "If righteousness is through law, then Christ died without cause." (N.B. This clause has no verb in
the Greek; a linking verb is implied. A literal translation is "If through law righteousness, then Christ without cause
died.") How do you understand Gal. 2:21?"

    Such a translation would be a flat out contradiction of the Law, "And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before Yahweh our G-d, as He hath commanded us" (Deut. 6:25).  Your translation could be a a bit more literal: "If through custom is righting, then the Anointed One died gratis."  Custom --- I understand as the norm -- the common Jewish idea that one's relationship with G-d is made right again by prayer, alms, and doing mitzvot (good deeds).  That is the custom or norm because it is what the majority of religious Jews tend to believe.  I translated "righting" instead of "righteousness," because the latter obscures the sense of the dikaiw/TZDQ root here, which is that of righting an unright relationship.  That is accomplished by atonement, not by good deeds.
 

" You understand "nomos" in Rom. 3:20 to mean "norm" or tradition, yet you understand the same word in Mt. 5:17 to
mean "law" or Torah. You seem to justify your choice in Rom 3 by saying that if Paul teaches the Torah is obviated
that he is heretical and must be repudiated. (This seems be a classic case of circular reasoning but I ight have
missed something.) Can you explain why "nomos" means norm in Rom. 3:20? "

     Nomos in the Greek world meant "custom, usage, norm [TDNT], and then law (abbot-smith)," but in the Jewish world, it usually meant Torah first.  Paul wrote to Greek speaking Gentiles, who would understand this, and Yayshua spoke to Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews who might not, unless they knew Greek well.  Certainly, the unlearned Jews could be mobilized against Paul by unscrupulous arguments based on his use of nomos in his letters to the Greek believers.
    Did I say it meant "norm" in Rom. 3:20?  If I did, it was a typo, or you dug up some very ancient research of mine.  I translate it this way:  "Wherefore, outside of the works of the law not will be righted any flesh before Him.  For through the law is the precise knowledge of sin."  On the other hand, "nomos" without the article or the word "deeds" next to it in vs. 21 means "norm,"  --- viz. Now yet aside from [the] norm a righting of G-d is manifest, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets --  Granted, Paul can be ambiguous and hard to understand at times, but that is what Peter thought.  You can either harmonize his statements or live with a self contradictory Paul.

Daniel