I simply was not clearly stating which laws Christian Jews remained zealous for and which they understood to be anathema unto God. It seemed apparent to me, but it was obviously not apparent to you.
Well, nobody knows for sure exactly what parts of the law remained a burden on the Jews after the cross. We know what was prescribed for the Gentiles but we don’t have an after the cross list like we do for the Gentiles. We can surmise that circumcision, dietary restrictions, and sabbath restrictions remained on that list but it could’ve included sacrifices as well, or it could’ve simply never changed after the cross in which case it wouldn’t warrant a new list of burdens for Jews.
In Acts 21 Paul takes a Nazarite vow which includes a sacrifice, he does this in order to appease the Jews who believed and were zealous for the law. Paul is arrested before he completes the vow. Someone could argue that the zealous Jews kept the vow except for the sacrifice because they weren’t zealous for that part of the law but it would be pure speculation, the Bible is silent on the matter.
seemed apparent to me, but it was obviously not apparent to you. Is that because the doctrine of Preterits believes as long as the Old city and temple remained, the cross and resurrection did not make a complete end of the Old until the literal destruction?
I would say preterist simply believe what the Bible says was going on during the first century, and if a person has a view that can harmonize the verses we’ve been looking at, then that becomes a possibility that needs to be considered. So far I can’t get your view to agree with all the verses although you seem to think it does.
IOW for your doctrine to be believable the cross and resurrection could not have altogether taken away the Old to establish the New Covenant.
Well it’s not that the doctrine was created first, it’s that the Bible shows the actual apostle discussing the burdens of the old covenant at the council at Jerusalem, many years after the cross. I could say in order for your doctrine to be believable the cross and resurrection have to have all together removed the old to establish the new covenant.
That's one of the problems with embracing the doctrines of Preterism, you seem to believe Christ was more concerned with what would become of apostate Jews than He was for building the Kingdom of God as the gospel is proclaimed.
God was long suffering to the Jews, not willing that any should perish. God was not slack in destroying the old covenant as some men count slackness. The Jews were blind in part until the fullness of the Gentiles came in, and as long as the physical temple stood it was not yet made manifest (Hebrews 9:8).
The fullness of the Gentiles came in when the Gentiles fulfilled the scriptures by destroying the physical temple and Jerusalem.
So with a preterist view, we can have an explanation for why it was possible for a Jew to both believe and be zealous for the law, and at the same time the preterist view agrees with Paul about circumcision and the difference between being a Jew outwardly and inwardly. The preterist view also explains why we shouldn’t allow a person who is zealous for the law to be part of the Church today, it was God’s long suffering that allowed it to continue in the Church for that generation.
I still don’t see how your view can have the old covenant absolutely ending at the cross, then agree it was ok to believe and be zealous for that old covenant law (or parts of it) after the cross, without agreeing it would be ok to currently be zealous for that law.
Let’s add one more verse to our conversation and let’s reconsider what law the believing Jews were zealous for in Acts 21:20.
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
