> The point I was trying to make with that example was, to put it simply, that study of the Bible shows that our actions are still important to God.

Yes. You're preaching to the converted. By studying the Old Testament to learn that our actions are important to God, you are taking a *principle* from the Old Testament, a very correct principle, and NOT an issue of doctrine. In other words, you're doing exactly what I specifically said one *should* do with books of the Bible that aren't *doctrinally* relevant to our times, which is to learn from them in one of countless other ways in which these books are necessary and important to our Christian lives and relationship with God. We have no quarrel on this.

> >But WHAT works apply to today? All Old Testament Law, or just the parts left alone or explicitly upheld by the portions of the New Testament for our times?
>
> The law was mandatory because at that time the keeping of the laws was equal to salvation; Christ changed this and with that change came a change in the laws we are to follow.

Yes. Again what I said myself in my own post in different words.

> >If the WHOLE Bible is the Word of God, why shouldn't we follow ALL of it?
>
> I don't think that we should even come close to doing everything in the Bible (Leviticus for example) because in so doing we would deny the sacrifice of Christ and place too much emphasis on works. God does not use every passage in the Bible as a way to tell us what to do. However, each word is there for a reason and has a definite meaning for our times.

Yes. Another thing I've been saying all along.

> Also, many rituals are simply not needed. However, we can gain wisdom through Biblical study of how God wanted people to live.

Yes.

> Also, the verses you gave were great support for what I was trying to say. When looking at them, I saw something interesting about 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
>
> "All Scripture (the Old Testament primarily, since the New Testament wasn't fully established)

I don't buy your restriction on that -- the New Testament is Scripture, so it doesn't particularly matter whether it had all been physically written down by then. The verse applies to all Scripture, period. John 1 is a very interesting chapter, because what it says about "the Word" applies equally well to both Jesus and the Bible. God's Word was composed long before it was physically written down. But this only a nitpick on your parenthetical. What you were trying to say, that ALL of the Bible is important for us to learn from, is correct.

> I believe in following the teachings of Christ whenever there is an apparent conflict because he had the authority to overturn the law.

Yes and no. Yes, he did have the authority to overturn the law. And he did. But as for why the doctrine Christ preached (and again, ONLY the doctrinal part of what Christ preached -- the *principles* are still important, regardless of the times) may or may not be applicable to *today* is a question I've already exhaustively answered in the "God's Word" thread.