Abolition of the Law?

[Esaias]

Many say it - 'the law is done away with, we are not under the law', etc.

What does this mean?

In studying about this subject I find I have several questions...

1. Jesus said he did not come to abolish or do away with the law, we are not to think he came to do away with or abolish the law, not one tiniest part of the law would be done away with while the world continues, those who keep and teach others to keep the least of the commandments would be called great in the kingdom.... He kept all the law, and we are to walk as he himself walked (according to John)... that sounds like Christians are expected to keep all the commandments of the law, from the Big Ten down to the fringes on the garments and everything in between, doesn't it?

2. Paul taught Gentiles, he never commanded or taught them to wear fringes, no mixed fibers, or get circumcised, was opposed to 'Judaizers' who were saying Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the whole law, taught circumcision and uncircumcision were irrelevant, etc... that sounds like regardless of whether Jews were to keep the law Gentiles were not expected to, doesn't it?

3. BUT although circumcision and uncircumcision were irrelevant, what WAS relevant was 'keeping the commandments'????? Isn't circumcision a commandment? Fringes? etc...???

4. The Jerusalem council (the First General Conference I guess?) decided that Gentile Christians were required to abstain from idolatry, blood, things strangled, and fornication or sexual immorality. Was this a 'church order' or law imposed by the church? How far does church authority extend? Was this merely an affirmation of Jewish ideas of 'Noachide laws/righteous Gentiles' concept being accepted by the church and put into practice as authoritative? And what about that 'for Moses is preached in the synagogues every sabbath' bit? Does that imply that Gentiles were expected to be learning the entirety of God's law, and thus become conformed to it and start practicing it, as time went on?

5. Paul preached against those gentiles who got circumcised to please the Judaizers, saying they had fallen away/fallen from grace, and that they were debtors to do the entire law... as if keeping God's commandments was a bad thing... yet in Romans and other places he speaks about the necessity of keeping God's commandments... does God have multiple sets of commandments, one of which is good and necessary and a sign of grace in a person's life, and the other a source of bondage and legalism and not binding on Christians? Where is this 'double set of laws' actually explained in scripture?

6. Why does it seem that so many people and so many churches hold to various opinions on these things, yet do not seem to have actual solid scriptural backing for their views, one way or the other? For example, people say 'well there is the law of Moses, done away with, and the law of God, still binding'. Yet there is not one passage anywhere that directly addresses the issue of 'there were two laws, one of God, and one of Moses, and the Moses one was done away with, and consisted of abc xyz, vs God's law, consisting of abc xyz...' It seems like there is way too much assuming about things, and having an interpretation and a doctrine, and then just cherry picking verses and then just interpreting those verses to mean this or that, while claiming the verses TEACH this or that... ie circular reasoning?

And that last point applies to a WHOLE lot of things and doctrines, by the way....

The NT seems to be written in such a way, AS IF this subject wasn't really hard at all... YET it seems so clouded in unanswered questions...

Anyway, I'm just thinking aloud, questioning, pondering...