From the description pof the video:
Many people think that God's Law was nailed to the cross. If that were the case, then we have a problem: 1. God would thus be admitting that He created something bad that bothered us, yet He says of His Law (Torah) that it is perfect. 2 We would have had no sin for almost 2000 years, because sin is the transgression/breaking of the Law. And since there is no Law, there is no sin...since there is no sin, there is no need to repent...and that would mean we live in a perfect world. Is that the case? Please look outside your window. So what was nailed to the cross? Though it may be that the more important question is WHY this thing was nailed to the cross.
English 
Polish
This question is not malicious: in the ST we had the stoning of people who did not observe the Sabbath and sometimes with the commandment of God Himself (I think it was in the book of Numbers), so should we also stone sinners today?
Such an interesting fact to study: EZ 20:25 I believe that being under the New Covenant I am no longer under the Law of Moses, but under the Law of Christ. If it is new, why should I continue under the old, or if we are to continue under the old, why did Jesus bring in the new? MT 9:16-17 I don't know about others, but I am convinced by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.
So why did Jesus say "not even a dash will change in the Law as long as there is heaven and earth" instead of "not even a dash will change in My new Law?" 🙂 As if there are two Gods and the one who revealed Himself as the second is a revised version of the first with revised rules.
Old and new is the connection with God and the taking away of sins. The first was through the temple, the ark, the sacrifices; the new is through Jesus.
How can there be a new Law? There would have to be a new God, because God is unchangeable. I know people who are unchangeable in their views, let alone God 😉 .
thank you for the material...
Very logical teaching dealing a death blow to easy believing.
I think that the question of the Law or the Covenant should not be viewed through the lens of the words old or new, but through a kind of preserved continuity or even its evolution. And just as the old was concluded with Israel, the new (better) one is concluded with anyone who personally decides to do so, but this does not mean that in this new (better) Law is no longer valid.
Moreover, in the new (better) one we have the bar raised considerably. In the old one it says, "You shall not commit adultery. Whereas what we have in the new ? "Everyone who looks lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart."
"If anyone wishes to put away his wife, let him give her a letter of divorce. And I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife - except in case of fornication - exposeth her to adultery; and whosoever shall take a wife that is put away committeth adultery."
And another extremely interesting verse. "You have heard that it was said to the forefathers, Thou shalt not murder; and whosoever shall commit murder shall be liable to judgment.And I say unto you, Every one that is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."
As for me, this is a clear interpretation of the Law, which is not in itself something new, something separate from the Old Covenant, but constitutes a certain continuity of it. Yes, one can say that it is something new because it has been greatly expanded and the bar has been set much higher.
The Law was, is, and will be even in the 1000 year Kingdom of the Lord here on Earth.
When living under the New (better) Covenant, it is not enough to just know the gospel of salvation by grace, or the gospel of the coming Kingdom (in which the Law will most certainly apply) but most importantly one must obey and follow the Lawgiver. After all, the Lord (Lawgiver) has clearly warned that there will be people who know the gospel but even those will be cast into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
To me, this outer darkness is identical to the lake of fire.
The new (better) Covenant is not at all so simple and easy that all you have to do is put your hand up and say "I want it that way" as many preach today....
I will expand on the thought. Keep in mind that the Lawgiver is the same in both the old and new covenants (there would have to be two Gods: Yahweh and some usurper claiming to be Yahweh) so why would He abolish His Laws when He Himself stated: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill."
Well the Lord fully fulfilled the Law but.... did not abolish it.
"Until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one dash will change in the Law until all is fulfilled." Exactly. Since the 1000 year Kingdom is to have the Law in effect as much as possible.
And now in order to remain fair on the subject one would have to consider the obvious question of the Decalogue.
If the Lord through His death nailed the Law to the cross then it is safe to say that the Decalogue would not apply. But this in turn would contradict the words above, "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or line will be changed in the Law until all is fulfilled."
Now to be even more honest one should ask. Ok. If the Law was not nailed to the cross, that it will be in force until the end of the world and the fulfillment of everything (and there is still much to be fulfilled) then what about "remember to keep Saturday holy?".
A very common objection is that the ordination of Saturday is an error based on the salvation of works, and since the Law was nailed to the cross (which it was not) it is no longer valid.
I think the key here is the intent of the person himself. If he keeps Saturday in the hope that by doing so he will contribute to his salvation, then it would probably be a mistake (salvation by works), but if he keeps Saturday as an expression of... obedience to the Lawgiver (because he wants to or to be pleasing to Him), then it is something different.