Or not. And that's the point -- there is no justification for your confident assertion that Christ was the One who spoke to Moses and Aaron. More likely, it was not. The nature of the Trinity is that it is three distinct persons, Who manifest God in very different ways. The Scriptures generally don't speak of the God with Whom Moses spoke, in the sense of Him being Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
But supposing for a moment that Moses did meet with the father and with Christ, do you believe that Christ and the Father would have different wills? Isn't the will of the father the will of the son?
No, their wills would be the same; but it does not follow that you properly understand what their will is.
For example, Jesus was quite clear about what defiles a person -- and it wasn't food of whatever description. For you to go back and say that "Christ" said differently in Leviticus, is to put these two passages at odds with one another. Jesus' point about the Old Testament is that the spirit of the Old Testament is what matters: the law and the prophets are summed up by "Love God and Love your neighbors as yourself." To reduce those two commandments to ritual food laws and such is precisely where Jesus found fault with the Pharisees.
A theological distinction has long been made between the moral laws of the Old Testament, and ceremonial or practical laws such as those related to foods or fabrics.
I strongly suspect that you have yourself made such distinctions between moral and ceremonial laws ... or do you actually follow the rituals described in Leviticus 1 -- the bull and the lamb, and the sprinkling of blood on the altar and the burnt offering and all that?
It's fine with me if keeping certain laws helps you to remain faithful -- I certainly won't try to talk you out of them. When you try to convince me of your position, though, I reserve the right to take exception.
I think we're looking at it from two different perspectives. I see a great consistency between the God of the old testament and the God of the new testament. I'm not sure where you got it, but I never mis-interpreted what Christ said about what defiles a person. I did offer an alternative explanation that harmonizes the old testament with the new testament. From what I perceive, you offer an explanation that harmonizes current traditional belief and culture with the new testament.
A theological distinction has long been made between the moral laws of the Old Testament, and ceremonial or practical laws such as those related to foods or fabrics. I strongly suspect that you have yourself made such distinctions between moral and ceremonial laws ... or do you actually follow the rituals described in Leviticus 1 -- the bull and the lamb, and the sprinkling of blood on the altar and the burnt offering and all that?
You seem to be answering many arguments which I've never made and that's probably my fault for not explaining my position better.
My primary position is this: The heart of the old covenant IS the ten commandments. God always intended these to be spiritual and physical laws. However, the Israelites were a non-spiritual people. The indwelling of Gods' spirit was not generally given. This didn't occur until the formation of the new testament church on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).
The other laws and commandments can be rightly divided by understanding that some are applicable only on a national scale. These include such things as civil and criminal penalties for prohibited behavior (think of the death penalty for certain offenses). All functions of the Levitical priesthood are not applicable to Christians because Christ is our high priest.
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law
This is clearly explained in Hebrews.
Ditto with sacrifices. Christ the sacrifice for Christians.
The problem IS that most Christians throw out the entire bible before the book of Matthew instead of understanding that the new covenant changed specific things and didn't wipe out every utterance of God for Christians before Christ.