How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

[Michaeneu]

Again, you gloss over what I have actually said and inject your own words into my mouth. I did not say God's rest prefigured rest in Jesus; and I explained how the literal rest and spiritual rest could exist at the same time and one still ebe a temporary shadow "reminder" of the other. (and it's your side that keeps saying the sabbath commandment is in the chapter).
You have skirted over all the above issues now, and are just repeating the same disproven things. That is not sound doctrine.

There may be some nuances where I and other Sabbath keepers differ here but that still does not skirt the point that there is no mention of the law or any commandment in Hebrews chapter four and it was you that made the assertion that you could show from this specific text that the fourth commandment was a shadow that prefigured Yahshua. It is clear that you’ve failed miserably: “…his work has been finished since the creation of the world.” Hebrews 4:3. Yah has not ceased from His rest from creation; His rest is unrelenting which makes it CONCURRENT with the rest in Yahshua, which is of faith. This precludes that the rest in Hebrews chapter four prefigured anything.

Again, the text in question is merely and profoundly an analogy of Yah’s rest at creation and the rest in Yahshua, which is of faith. You go way beyond what the texts say to further your personal belief system!

According to Hebrews chapter four Yah’s rest at creation DID NOT prefigure the rest in Yahshua; they were CONCURRENT. The proof is that the Israelites under the first covenant were able to enter into the rest in Yahshua while keeping the fourth commandment, which simply makes your assertion erroneous. Hebrews chapter four cannot be used in any assertion that the fourth commandment prefigured anything!

Again, you need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything.

Well, at least in this area, we are getting somewhere outside of the same old cycle.
The unpardonable sin was not just any blasphemy; but blasphemy against the Spirit. Look where He even says there that blasphemy aginast the Son shall be forgive. Blasphemy against the Spirit was denying the power, by which they would cut off all acess to God's regeneration and salvation.
And even the distinction between the greatest Two commandments says nothing about the ceremonies, or that this "standing" is why some laws woudl pass.

This only confirms that the first and greatest commandment had greater standing than the second because the offences against the Holy Spirit concern the first and greatest commandment, not the second. And you continue to miss the object of why I used the texts in the first place, which was the standing of the fourth commandment, or that it was placed side by side with the moral law that was the sum of the greatest commandment, which was never cancelled—giving it moral standing.

So now salvation rests on one putting thelselves through that "hardship" in the name of "the cross".

Right away you start jumping on straw men again because I NEVER stated anywhere that “hardship” was a prerequisite to “salvation”. I made it very clear that salvation was a free gift! We are judged by the law which reveals that our standing in the kingdom comes from understanding the law and adhering to it with the proper spirit. Ignorance of the law and opposition to it SHALL NOT receive great standing in Yah’s kingdom. Keeping both letter and spirit of any law that was not cancelled sets us a variance with the world and leads to hardship. If one attempts to avoid hardship which is from chastisement they are bastards and not sons of Yah.

“For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." Hebrews 12:6-8

You were the one that brought up the subject of “hardship” concerning the Sabbath; all I did was to reveal that “hardship” is expected if we are sons and daughters of Yah.

To this ends you have yet to show that the fourth commandment fell under the criterion that canceled the law which was a weak shadow, imperfect and unprofitable.

Michael

 

[Eric B]

No one is denying that moral law stems from Yah! That’s your straw man. But that DOES NOT automatically translate into the abolishment of the fourth commandment or that it was NOT intended as moral. And this straw man doesn’t preclude that you haven’t proven that “universal law” is the object when THE LAW is addressed in scripture OR that the fourth commandment fell under the criterion of the law that was cancelled. It is you that made the assertion that “universal law” had to taken into consideration concerning how the OC changed and so it is you that has to prove it and you have simply failed in this assertion. It was also you that made assertions concerning context and have failed to address that the context of the NT does not allow for any alien identity for the term “law” outside of the covenant UNLESS the context specifically states otherwise! As I stated previously, even in context of Romans chapter two there is a clear distinction between “universal law” and the covenant law.

Consequently, we ARE NOT to identify “universal law” as the object when THE LAW is addressed in scripture, but identify the LAW with the covenant when the law is addressed in scripture. Again, when the law is addressed in scripture it pertains to the covenant, which is distinguished from any “universal” identity. That the Ethnos had some part of the law written in their heart is incidental or frivolous to the issue of THE LAW OF THE COVENANT, not momentous as you are attempting to imply. (It is also noteworthy to address the perception of the law “written in the heart” concerning the Ethnos in Romans chapter two. It would be frivolous to interpret that it was written in any greater capacity than it was written in the covenant people—quite the opposite. Paul is addressing the hypocrites among the Jews, but not all Jews were hypocrites.)

This is what makes the issue of “universal law” frivolous concerning the issue of HOW THE LAW CHANGED. The object of how the law changed relates strictly to the covenant law and does not represent or include some identity to “universal law”.

I've said this before in passing, but throughout the NT, especially Paul's writings, you see "the Law" spoken of both in a positive fashion as holy and perennial, and also in a negative fashion as something that was a burden and that we are free from. You are making such an emphasis on "God's own Laws" or "the Law of the Covenant" now; yet your argument is that when "law" is spoken of negatively, it is only "the weak shadow ceremonies", and when it is positive (as "God's own Laws written on the heart") it is the Ten Commandments. But the ceremonies being weak shadows does not prevent them from still being apart of "God's Laws", and "the Law of the Covenant", so what you are saying here does not hold up.
In fact, you basically are trying to make "the Law of the Covenant" perennial or universal, as opposed to the ceremonies that are cancelled; when it is that Covenant that passed away; so you have turned the whole thing on its ear. That's why you reject "universal Law" versus "the Law of the OC". You have twisted it around to try to keep all ten of the Ten commandments in, but if you read the scriptures without this bias, then the disctinctions as I have made them are obvious. It is obvious to everyone except your "belief system".

What is “inference” is that the fourth commandment was abrogated by the cross. There is not one place in the NT where it states that the fourth commandment was done away with at the cross, and what Yah has sanctified let no man desecrate without the specific command by Yah that its holiness has abated.

Colossians 2:16-7with "sabbath day" distinguished from "holy day" which are the annual sabbaths). Of course, your side always has some "explanation" for this wherewith we are not to just read it as it is. It seems every group has different ways of rereading it, though. Then in Rom.14 we are told not to judge over days either. That too everyone has some method of getting around. I had bought all of these arguments when I was keeping the sabbath, but in time it becamse clear that they were flimsy. You always have to come up and claim "well, that verse doesn't really mean that".

You got off point when you attempted to import the circumcision of Abraham into the issue. We are dealing with the change of the Sinai covenant and not Abraham’s covenant. You’ve been the one making assertions without the aid of texts, so I just followed your example after some time. In Exodus chapter twelve they are first told that they are not to allow strangers or aliens to partake of the Passover without being circumcised. This is the issue in Galatians because the civil law required that upon the eighth-day after birth males were to be circumcised (Leviticus 12:3). It is clear that Paul was addressing the shadow law in Galatians because the Gentiles did not fall under the civil ordinance requirement. Circumcision was joined to the shadow of the Passover and the civil law in the OC. In the former, IT IS covered in Hebrews seven through ten, in the latter it was suspended when the crown was taken.

I brought circumcision in to hold you up to your claim that Hebrews 7 was an exhaustive all inclusive lesson on why all of the Law outside the Ten Commandments is cancelled, and sure enough, as if an afterthought, you come up with some other scheme to get circumcision included, even though it still doesn't fit under the first scheme. On one hand, you're talking about the Abrahamic covenant. But if that is so, then it could be argued that that was not cancelled; because Christ only abrogated the Mosaic covenant. Of course, that is not true. But then you go on and try to bind it to one of the Mosaic laws anyway. But even then, the way you do it glosses over the context.
God commanded them to be circumcised in order to keep the Passover because the Passver was for the nation of Israel only. To keep that, you had to become aprt of Israel, which included being circumcised. That does not make circumcision any more apart of the Passover, than it makes the sabbath apart of the Passover, because they would be required to keep that as well in order to participate in all of Israel's activities.

Yes it does because it is a non sequitur that something is “cancelled” that is to “continue”. Something that is cancelled ends and does not continue. It is clear that you always have to resort to some re-interpretation of the term “cancel” as “to relax and carry on”, which is by definition contradictory and erroneous. Where there is remission of sin there in NO MORE offering for sin, which means an ending, not a continuation.

The reason that you attempt to transfer some part of the ceremonial law into the New Covenant is to uphold the untenable idea that the spirit of the law is kept while the letter was done away with in the New Covenant, but no such thing is supported in the NT. The focus changed to the spirit but the letter is still valid: the letter of “thou shalt not kill” is still written in the heart as well as the spirit of “love thy neighbor as thyself” and etcetera; that is how the law is magnified. That there was always a spiritual intent that was greater than the letter did not change from one covenant to another. That the NT’s focus is upon the spirit simply does not address “how the law changed” either since the letter of the laws that were not cancelled was magnified concurrently.

"YES IT DOES" WHAT? That Jesus has nothing to do with the sacrifices? That's what that looks like it is answering. If it is, your doctrine is way out there, and we basically have no remission of sins to begin with. The remission of sin by Christ IS the "fulfillment in the spirit" of the sacrifices I am speaking of. Like I said; they were not just thrown out, but fulfilled in some way to the present. You seem to be accusing me now of saying they still "carry on" in some "relaxed form". Those are your own words, and not what I have said. But the principle of them MUST continue. Do we have remission of sins now? How? Because of Christ's once and for all sacrifice! Then the principle of those laws DOES continue on on the spirit. If they don't, then how can we say we have remissions of sins today? We would still be left in our sins. I don't see what's so hard to believe about this.

It's not that it's not supported in the NT; it's that you reject it as taught there, in order to rework the whole concept to maintain the sabbath command.
You are the one coming to the scripture with a bias. I am not, because I was once on your side, but then saw how flimsy the arguments were.

 

[Eric B]

There may be some nuances where I and other Sabbath keepers differ here but that still does not skirt the point that there is no mention of the law or any commandment in Hebrews chapter four and it was you that made the assertion that you could show from this specific text that the fourth commandment was a shadow that prefigured Yahshua. It is clear that you’ve failed miserably: “…his work has been finished since the creation of the world.” Hebrews 4:3. Yah has not ceased from His rest from creation; His rest is unrelenting which makes it CONCURRENT with the rest in Yahshua, which is of faith. This precludes that the rest in Hebrews chapter four prefigured anything.

Again, the text in question is merely and profoundly an analogy of Yah’s rest at creation and the rest in Yahshua, which is of faith. You go way beyond what the texts say to further your personal belief system!

According to Hebrews chapter four Yah’s rest at creation DID NOT prefigure the rest in Yahshua; they were CONCURRENT. The proof is that the Israelites under the first covenant were able to enter into the rest in Yahshua while keeping the fourth commandment, which simply makes your assertion erroneous. Hebrews chapter four cannot be used in any assertion that the fourth commandment prefigured anything!

Again, you need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything.

Again, on this point, you are just repeating the same stuff, and it no longer has anything to do with anything I am saying. How many times do I have to keep telling you that I am not saying God's rest at Creation prefigured anything? But that's what you keep "answering". Along with the fact that the Israelites could keep the literal sabbath at the same time as the rest on Jesus. The truth is, most of them didn't have the rest in Jesus. The letter of the law was what was being emphasized then, and many people missed the spirit of the law. This is preciusely what the second verse of this chapter tells us.

What is unsound doctrine is attempting to assert that Yah commits acts of caprice and is arbitrary in His providence. Unsound doctrine upholds that the Spirit was capricious concerning the issue of standing and that is was a superfluous act by Yah to place the fourth commandment along side the greatest moral precepts of all? What is unsound doctrine is to suggest that Yah is anything other than immutable, that He is the same yesterday, today and forever—which would have THE SAME PROHIBITIONS connected with the law of the fourth commandment under the new heavens and earth!

This only confirms that the first and greatest commandment had greater standing than the second because the offences against the Holy Spirit concern the first and greatest commandment, not the second. And you continue to miss the object of why I used the texts in the first place, which was the standing of the fourth commandment, or that it was placed side by side with the moral law that was the sum of the greatest commandment, which was never cancelled—giving it moral standing.

That does not prove your standing, because "Blasphemy against the Spirit" and "Blasphemy against the Son" are not two separate commandments. Blasphemy is the 3rd commandment, so which other commandment is there to be "greater". Is the 3rd greater than itself?
(The reason one is more severe is because of WHO is beigng blasphemed. That's the CONTEXT, so there is no need to read anything else into it)

This shows that your whole "standing" criteria is made up, so likewise your assertion that the sabbath simply being "next to" that proves it is the greatest is even worse. The most I can grant you on that is that it was the greatest THEN, to them, which can be supported by the fact that it is elsehwere described as the sign of the covenant (Ex.31:13). But even that is stretching it, and it says nothing about it being perennial. You are reading all of this minutiae into every text, instead of just reading it for what it is. That is the formula surely for unsound doctrine.

And your argument about "God not changing", and "the same prohibitions" would suggest that all the sacrifices must still be in effect. As much as you try to argue about them being cancelled, that then contradicts the argument that God's not changing means that the same laws He gave in the past must still be in effect today. Only if you deny that He gave the weak shadow laws in the first place can that assumption be made. (and you come close to this in suggesting "only the Ten Commandments" are "My [God's] Laws").

All of this rambling (I hate to put it) on "capriciousness" and such, but all of this is your own categorization system, because you reject what the NT tells us, and have to reinterpret and reexplain everything and come up with some new system of categorization of the Law.

Right away you start jumping on straw men again because I NEVER stated anywhere that “hardship” was a prerequisite to “salvation”. I made it very clear that salvation was a free gift! We are judged by the law which reveals that our standing in the kingdom comes from understanding the law and adhering to it with the proper spirit. Ignorance of the law and opposition to it SHALL NOT receive great standing in Yah’s kingdom. Keeping both letter and spirit of any law that was not cancelled sets us a variance with the world and leads to hardship. If one attempts to avoid hardship which is from chastisement they are bastards and not sons of Yah.

“For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." Hebrews 12:6-8

You were the one that brought up the subject of “hardship” concerning the Sabbath; all I did was to reveal that “hardship” is expected if we are sons and daughters of Yah.

To this ends you have yet to show that the fourth commandment fell under the criterion that canceled the law which was a weak shadow, imperfect and unprofitable.

Michael

You did add salvation to the issue by quoting "Not everyone who says unto me Lord Lord...". And I reacted to that, and had to go out the door to work then, and didn't even have the phone where I could fix it on the way. Apparently you missed my additional response when I got home that night (separated by Bob's two cents). Here it is again:

1) People will be lost because of lawlessness; not legalism; Let us error on the side of the law and not on the side of lawlessness.

This is precisely the mindset of the Jews, and precisely why they added so many "manmade restrictions" (which you all take care disclaim), in the first place! In fact, we can even see the latent lawlessness in the claim that it is actually OK to "error"; just as long as it is "on the side of Law". That is actually a form of lawlessness! Because it lways ends up that the person comitting the "error" decides for himself what is bends or does not bend the law; just like "corban".This is precisely the mindset that Christ and Paul attacked all over the NT. AND; it also is precisely what the "rest in Christ" in Heb.4 is NOT! This "just to be on the safe side" mentality is exactly what one is to "rest" FROM.
Ironic that claims of "legalism" were actually thrown at me for a long while here; but this makes it further clear who the legalist really is!

2)using hardships as an excuse not to take up the cross

Once again, in the rush, I forgot to mention the obvious point that I have been through this "hardship" before, leaving one job, and losing another over it. So I am not just justifying avoiding a hardship. I have endured it before. I would not have abandoned the practice if the argumentation used for it had not been so flawed; as someone showed me back then. These arguments are purely FLIMSY, and as I have said; it all boils down to mere inferences. You all have produced no scripture telling us to put ourselves through this burden today. Just Creation; Exodus, and Isaiah. Everything BUT NT instruction!

And to add to this, it cannot possibly become an issue of not doing God's will and being turned away at the judgment if it is not something that God requires of us today, as "doing His will' in the first place. If the practice was THIS important, we would have much clearer instruction on it than "Everyone knew/should know it is still mandatory because it was apart of the Ten Commandments", and then having to use all of this inference and foreign categorization and minutiae system in order to decipher that. You're the one manking God "capricious" and superfluous by snatching up every little occurrence and reading it into the scripture as proof of your belief system.

 

[Eric B]

A side point; hardships from variance with the sinful world is not "chastisement FROM GOD"! That is another scripture that many people have misread to try to encourage Christians going through hard times, and it ends up leading to judging (Oh, you're not happy enough in your suffering, etc). The passage doesn't even say it is speaking of physical tribulation. The previous chapter is the "faith hall of fame" which mentioned some saints who suffered as inspiration; along with Jesus Himself right in v.2 and 3; but the immediate context of this passage seems to be personal sin. (in fact, v.4 says their struggle hasn't even come to "shedding of blood" yet!) The "chastisement" is to be "rebuked", meaning conviction (see Greek). Even "scourge" allows a figurative meaning, so this is spiritual, not physical or emotional torment!

And in the area of the sabbath, we are simply not convicted it is mandatory, and your system of arguments is simply not solid enough.

 

[BobRyan]

Eric claims that we are free to ignore the institution of Marriage just as he ignores Christ the Creator's Holy day of Gen 2:3.

Bob responds with the obvious.

Bob said:
Marriage was MADE for mankind. That means that ALL must respect and honor Marriage. ALL are "Children" of parents (as it turns out). ALL must honor and respect the marriage of OTHERS and of their parents.

For marriage was made FOR mankind as a blessing. However God does not say of marriage the SAME sweeping statements that he makes for HIS OWN Seventh-day Holy day!

God does not say "For as Adam was joined to Eve in Marriage so must you all do likewise" - rather he argues that those WHO DO participate in marriage must follow the "for all mankind" model when they do it and those who DO NOT participate in it must still show the honor and respect for the institution that all must have.

Eric said
It is amazing how you are just make up this concept by fiat to justify your doctrine.

If you need NT and OT texts showing us that all must respect the bonds of marriage - I am happy to provide them.

I show that what God has made holy or sanctified must be respected, honored, upheld by ALL.

In the case of Marriage that is not a "From year to year shall ALL mankind renew marriage vows" as we have EACH PERSON obligated in the case of Isaiah 66 for the Sabbath -- "ALL mankind". But we DO have the fact that ALL MANKIND is to honor the bonds of Marriage.

Obviously.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
In the case of the Seventh day God says "From Sabbath to Sabbath SHALL ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

He does not say "From Year to year shall ALL MANKIND come before me to be married or renew marriage vows".

God says "that as GOD rested on the Seventh-day" - SO shall you BECAUSE of the Gen 2:3 fact "alone" where God "MADE the Day Holy"!

As Isaiah 66 shows this "does not change in the future" of the New Heavens and New Earth. Exegesis demands that we admit that Isaiah's concept of "Sabbath" was every bit what John the baptizer, David, and Adam would have had OT!

Eric said --
You missed where I said above to Michael "Even Isaiah 66 does not say they would be refraining from work then". He says "come before Me"; that alone is not "KEEPing" it in the sense that He commanded Israel

This is a case of ignoring exegesis entirely for your man-made tradition Eric!

Exegesis demands that we see the Author in the context that he is writing and see the meaning of his words as the primary intended audience would have known them to be! There is NO QUESTION as to what his meaning for "Sabbath" IS to the primary intended audience of Isaiah. There is no question that they knew that HONORING and KEEPING the day was to submit to God's OWN spoken word in Exodus 20:8-11

You simply abandon all of scriptural exegesis to cling to your man-made tradition "anyway" -- how can you do that with good conscience??!!

 

[Eric B]

Because you're taking everything but clear NT instruction as your proof. that is not sound exegesis at all. You take one passage about a future Kingdom under Old Covenant Israel had they not broken the covenant; and it still does not say that all of those nations that would be "coming before Him" would be resting on the day. In fact, if they spend the whole day traveling from all over the world, they can't be resting; and only a certain distance of travel was allowed on the day, since you insist "Isaiah's concept of 'Sabbath' was every bit what John the baptizer, David, and Adam would have had OT!"

As for marriage, you still forcefeed your own concept of "honor". If a person chooses never to be married, he IS "ignoring the institution of marriage". He decides it is not for him or her. And the scripture I gave you says that if ther spouse dies, she is "freed" from it, not still under some "law of marriage everyone must 'honor'. But you just ignore this and repeat your own concept. Someone else's marriage has nothing to do with him.

You're talking about the command not to violate someone else's marriage, but the Bible does not define that as "honoring/upholding/respecting" marriage in the sense you are trying to convey, since we are comparing it to "KEEPing" something, meaning YOUR OWN participation in it, as in the sabbath. But if you insist a person still "honors marriage even if they don't participate in it" by "not interfering with someone else's participation in it", then a person can "honor the sabbath" without participating in it, simply by not interfering with someone else's participation of it; and that is actually partially what I believe the NT teaches us, so it further would go against your position.

 

[BobRyan]

Because you're taking everything but clear NT instruction as your proof. that is not sound exegesis at all. You take one passage about a future Kingdom under Old Covenant Israel had they not broken the covenant; and it still does not say that all of those nations that would be "coming before Him" would be resting on the day. In fact, if they spend the whole day traveling from all over the world, they can't be resting; and only a certain distance of travel was allowed on the day, since you insist "Isaiah's concept of 'Sabbath' was every bit what John the baptizer, David, and Adam would have had OT!"

#1 you are making up stories about HOW people travel in the new earth as your doctrinal proof that WE SHOULD not apply exegesis in Is 66!!!

#2. You make up the idea that we should try to INSERT your own views of how Christ the creator's Sabbath is abolished at the cross INTO the text of Isaiah 66. But that does not work because ALL AGREE that the Rev 21 "New Earth" event is in fact what Isaiah 66 is speaking of and ALL AGREE that this is "after the cross". Isaiah NEVER projected a future with NO MESSIAH!!

#3. The coming of the Messiah was NEVER stated as a means for abolishing the "New Covenant" of Jer 33!! That was never the OT view of it. So the New Earth WOULD be after the Messiah and the Messiah would be central to the New Covenant - EVEN by the understanding and context of OT saints in Isaiah 66.

#4. Christ said PRE-Cross the "Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not mankind MADE for the Sabbath" - speaking of the MAKING of BOTH! We SEE the Making of BOTH in Gen 1-2:3! The scope at its ORIGIN is stated by Christ to be all mankind!!

You argument there has totally collapsed!

 

[BobRyan]

Eric
As for marriage, you still forcefeed your own concept of "honor".

You can not marry someone else's wife because she is "already married" - so EVEN if you stay single all your life -- you must honor and submit to the law of marriage.

If her husband dies -- THEN and only then does she become someone that you might marry - BECAUSE you (though you may be single) must honor and respect and submit to the laws governing marriage.

Obviously.

Why you insist on going up against this obvious point is beyond me!!

The fact that your man-made tradition is forcing you to do it speaks volumes Eric.

ALL are bound by the two institutions God gave "to mankind" and "for mankind" in the garden.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

#1 you are making up stories about HOW people travel in the new earth as your doctrinal proof that WE SHOULD not apply exegesis in Is 66!!!

Regardless; the point is, it still doesn't say they were ceasing from all work on the day.

#2. You make up the idea that we should try to INSERT your own views of how Christ the creator's Sabbath is abolished at the cross INTO the text of Isaiah 66. But that does not work because ALL AGREE that the Rev 21 "New Earth" event is in fact what Isaiah 66 is speaking of and ALL AGREE that this is "after the cross". Isaiah NEVER projected a future with NO MESSIAH!!

Not a future with NO messiah, but rather one where the physical Israelites ACCEPTED Him, and ruled with Him under THAT coovenant. But that changed when they rejected Him, and God turned to a new covenant.
That right there ought to show you how utterly ridiculous your argument is.

#3. The coming of the Messiah was NEVER stated as a means for abolishing the "New Covenant" of Jer 33!! That was never the OT view of it. So the New Earth WOULD be after the Messiah and the Messiah would be central to the New Covenant - EVEN by the understanding and context of OT saints in Isaiah 66.

Once again, this does not take into account their ejection of Him. You are taking these OT scriptures in pure ISOLATION amd refusing to deal with the whole revelation that came after them.

#4. Christ said PRE-Cross the "Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not mankind MADE for the Sabbath" - speaking of the MAKING of BOTH! We SEE the Making of BOTH in Gen 1-2:3! The scope at its ORIGIN is stated by Christ to be all mankind!!

You argument there has totally collapsed!

And your insistence on "made for mankind" equating to some "OBLIGATION" UPON all mankind still has man made for the sabbath, and not the other way around. It was at oene point made into an abligation, but that was not what it was supposed to be, and that is neither what Genesis or Christ said it was. Stop reading your own meanings into scriptural statements!

You can not marry someone else's wife because she is "already married" - so EVEN if you stay single all your life -- you must honor and submit to the law of marriage.

If her husband dies -- THEN and only then does she become someone that you might marry - BECAUSE you (though you may be single) must honor and respect and submit to the laws governing marriage.

Obviously.

Why you insist on going up against this obvious point is beyond me!!

The fact that your man-made tradition is forcing you to do it speaks volumes Eric.

ALL are bound by the two institutions God gave "to mankind" and "for mankind" in the garden.

That is stilljust your own definition of the concept. I even gave you Romans 7, which describes a person being "free from the Law of marriage", and nt "still under it because they cannot marry someone else already married". But you attempt to correct the scripture yet again. Can you find a single scripture SAYING that every single person who does not marry is still to "KEEP the 'Law of Marriage'" by not violating someone else's? If you can't find that, then you shouldn't be talking about any "man-made traditions", because you or your group has just made that up off the top of your heads because you know that this point alone destroys your whole "made for mankind" argument.
And like I also just said (which you conveniently skipped over), if you insist a person still "honors marriage even if they don't participate in it" by "not interfering with someone else's participation in it", then a person can "honor the sabbath" without participating in it, simply by not interfering with someone else's participation of it.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You people in my view disagree on your mutual agreement. So I'll give my own opinion on one as[ect of your conversation, though not asked for; therefore pardon me ...

The Sabbath of the Seventh Day is 'typical' and absolutely so. The Sabbath speaks of Christ or it is numb. God is honoured through the Sabbath through Jesus Christ and for His sake; or it is superfluous and senseless, 'legalalist'-parody and proud parading of human achievement.
The Sabbath is eschatology, or it has nothing whatsoever to do with what is true Christianity.
And the 'texts' for 'proving' this: Each and every one the Bible contains!

"God rested the Seventh Day"; "God the Seventh Day finished"; "God blessed the Seventh Day"; "God sanctified the Seventh Day" ... each and every instance is a case of GOD, who ACTS. Nothing has been created that was created without the WORD of God, says John 1; and therefore could the writer to the Hebrews declare: "God THUS (through the Son) concerning the Seventh Day spake".

You cannot see Jesus Christ in ALL this? Then it's no use trying further.

 

[Michaeneu]

I've said this before in passing, but throughout the NT, especially Paul's writings, you see "the Law" spoken of both in a positive fashion as holy and perennial, and also in a negative fashion as something that was a burden and that we are free from. You are making such an emphasis on "God's own Laws" or "the Law of the Covenant" now; yet your argument is that when "law" is spoken of negatively, it is only "the weak shadow ceremonies", and when it is positive (as "God's own Laws written on the heart") it is the Ten Commandments. But the ceremonies being weak shadows does not prevent them from still being apart of "God's Laws", and "the Law of the Covenant", so what you are saying here does not hold up.
In fact, you basically are trying to make "the Law of the Covenant" perennial or universal, as opposed to the ceremonies that are cancelled; when it is that Covenant that passed away; so you have turned the whole thing on its ear. That's why you reject "universal Law" versus "the Law of the OC". You have twisted it around to try to keep all ten of the Ten commandments in, but if you read the scriptures without this bias, then the disctinctions as I have made them are obvious. It is obvious to everyone except your "belief system".

Eric, are you intentionally attempting NOT to understand what my point is so that you don’t have to address it or what? Again, my point was that you haven’t proven that “universal law” is the object when THE LAW is addressed in scripture OR that the fourth commandment fell under the criterion of the law that was cancelled. The “law of the covenant” represented the 613 laws that were the object of THE CHANGE and not some extraneous identity to “universal law”. The CHANGE IN THE LAW ONLY CONCERNS the 613 laws of the Old Covenant and not any frivolous identity to “universal law”. It’s sad that I have to repeat myself and you still don’t address the issue.

The CHANGE IN THE LAW cancelled only that law which was a weak shadow, imperfect and unprofitable of the 613 laws—while the law that was profitable and perfect was written in the heart and mind of the New Covenant people. You have yet to show that the fourth commandment was a weak shadow that was imperfect and unprofitable.

The reason you attempt to import the alien and frivolous idea of “universal law” is because the Sabbath is not included in this frivolous identity, which aids in your attempt to uphold unsound doctrine concerning standing in the law and the fourth commandment.

Colossians 2:16-7with "sabbath day" distinguished from "holy day" which are the annual sabbaths). Of course, your side always has some "explanation" for this wherewith we are not to just read it as it is. It seems every group has different ways of rereading it, though. Then in Rom.14 we are told not to judge over days either. That too everyone has some method of getting around. I had bought all of these arguments when I was keeping the sabbath, but in time it becamse clear that they were flimsy. You always have to come up and claim "well, that verse doesn't really mean that".

And I suppose that cancel doesn’t really mean cancel, or that “the law” in scripture doesn’t really mean the Mosaic Law? It would be helpful if you were to correct your interpretation of the aforementioned before I would accept your view of Colossians above. The “Sabbath days” (I noticed you dropped the plural) in Colossians are linked to meat, drink, new moon offerings that were “a shadow of things to come”—which all point to the sabbaths of Leviticus chapter 23, because of yet you have not produced the scriptural evidence that the fourth commandment prefigured anything and it certainly wasn’t linked to meat, drink and new moon offerings. Memorials point backwards not forward! There is not one place in the NT where it states that the fourth commandment was done away with at the cross, and what Yah has sanctified let no man desecrate without the specific command by Yah that its holiness has abated.

I brought circumcision in to hold you up to your claim that Hebrews 7 was an exhaustive all inclusive lesson on why all of the Law outside the Ten Commandments is cancelled, and sure enough, as if an afterthought, you come up with some other scheme to get circumcision included, even though it still doesn't fit under the first scheme. On one hand, you're talking about the Abrahamic covenant. But if that is so, then it could be argued that that was not cancelled; because Christ only abrogated the Mosaic covenant. Of course, that is not true. But then you go on and try to bind it to one of the Mosaic laws anyway. But even then, the way you do it glosses over the context.
God commanded them to be circumcised in order to keep the Passover because the Passver was for the nation of Israel only. To keep that, you had to become aprt of Israel, which included being circumcised. That does not make circumcision any more apart of the Passover, than it makes the sabbath apart of the Passover, because they would be required to keep that as well in order to participate in all of Israel's activities.

Really, you do go on, but all that you’ve stated does not preclude that circumcision was bound to the Passover and the civil law in the Mosaic covenant. In the former, IT IS covered in Hebrews seven through ten, in the latter it was suspended when the crown was taken.

"YES IT DOES" WHAT? That Jesus has nothing to do with the sacrifices? That's what that looks like it is answering. If it is, your doctrine is way out there, and we basically have no remission of sins to begin with. The remission of sin by Christ IS the "fulfillment in the spirit" of the sacrifices I am speaking of. Like I said; they were not just thrown out, but fulfilled in some way to the present. You seem to be accusing me now of saying they still "carry on" in some "relaxed form". Those are your own words, and not what I have said. But the principle of them MUST continue. Do we have remission of sins now? How? Because of Christ's once and for all sacrifice! Then the principle of those laws DOES continue on on the spirit. If they don't, then how can we say we have remissions of sins today? We would still be left in our sins. I don't see what's so hard to believe about this.
It's not that it's not supported in the NT; it's that you reject it as taught there, in order to rework the whole concept to maintain the sabbath command.
You are the one coming to the scripture with a bias. I am not, because I was once on your side, but then saw how flimsy the arguments were.

Yes it does answer your point that “cancellation” did not “just thrown away” the sacrificial system, to paraphrase your original point. Yahshua fulfills the shadows under the new order of the Melchisedec priesthood and not the Mosaic order according to scripture. The Mosaic ceremonial law lost its standing at law at the cross otherwise the animal sacrifices would have continued to be recognized by Yah, but the scriptures clearly state that where there is remission of sin there in NO MORE offering for sin, which means an end, not a continuation.

It is a non sequitur that something is “cancelled” that is to “continue”. Something that is cancelled ends and does not continue. It is clear that you always have to resort to some re-interpretation of the term “cancel” as “to relax and carry on”, which is by definition contradictory and erroneous.

The point is that you attempt to transfer some part of the ceremonial law into the New Covenant is to uphold the untenable idea that the spirit of the law is kept while the letter was done away with in the New Covenant, but no such thing is supported in the NT. The focus changed to the spirit but the letter is still valid: the letter of “thou shalt not kill” is still written in the heart as well as the spirit of “love thy neighbor as thyself” and etcetera; that is how the law is magnified. That there was always a spiritual intent that was greater than the letter did not change from one covenant to another. That the NT’s focus is upon the spirit simply does not address “how the law changed” either since the letter of the laws that were not cancelled was magnified concurrently.

 

[Michaeneu]

Again, on this point, you are just repeating the same stuff, and it no longer has anything to do with anything I am saying. How many times do I have to keep telling you that I am not saying God's rest at Creation prefigured anything? But that's what you keep "answering". Along with the fact that the Israelites could keep the literal sabbath at the same time as the rest on Jesus. The truth is, most of them didn't have the rest in Jesus. The letter of the law was what was being emphasized then, and many people missed the spirit of the law. This is preciusely what the second verse of this chapter tells us.

That many missed the spirit of the law does not preclude that it didn’t exist, which supports that Yah’s rest was CONCURRENT with the rest in Yahshua, which is of faith. Chapter eleven of the same book supports this also. Consequently, your assertion that you could show from this text that the fourth commandment prefigured something completely falls on its face. Again, you need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything.

… "Blasphemy against the Spirit" and "Blasphemy against the Son" are not two separate commandments. Blasphemy is the 3rd commandment, so which other commandment is there to be "greater". Is the 3rd greater than itself?
(The reason one is more severe is because of WHO is beigng blasphemed. That's the CONTEXT, so there is no need to read anything else into it)
This shows that your whole "standing" criteria is made up, so likewise your assertion that the sabbath simply being "next to" that proves it is the greatest is even worse. The most I can grant you on that is that it was the greatest THEN, to them, which can be supported by the fact that it is elsehwere described as the sign of the covenant (Ex.31:13). But even that is stretching it, and it says nothing about it being perennial. You are reading all of this minutiae into every text, instead of just reading it for what it is. That is the formula surely for unsound doctrine… All of this rambling (I hate to put it) on "capriciousness" and such, but all of this is your own categorization system, because you reject what the NT tells us, and have to reinterpret and reexplain everything and come up with some new system of categorization of the Law.

This response is so like the rest of your work; you actually end up acknowledging the premise of my assertion and then still attempt to deny it at the same time. (This is why your belief system must re-interpret terms such as “cancellation”, “the law” and “standing”.) You acknowledged that one is more severe which means that some law was greater than another in the Mosaic Covenant. It was Yahweh’s criterion, not mine, that placed the fourth commandment with the greatest moral precepts of the Mosaic covenant and not one of the other precepts was to be considered weak, unprofitable or imperfect. What is unsound doctrine is attempting to assert that Yah commits acts of caprice and is arbitrary in His providence. Unsound doctrine upholds that the Spirit was capricious concerning the issue of standing and that is was a superfluous act by Yah to place the fourth commandment along side the greatest moral precepts of all?

You have yet to show through the scriptures that the fourth commandment fell under the criterion in Hebrews and that it was a weak shadow, imperfect and unprofitable.

You did add salvation to the issue by quoting "Not everyone who says unto me Lord Lord...". And I reacted to that…. This is precisely the mindset of the Jews, and precisely why they added so many "manmade restrictions" (which you all take care disclaim), in the first place! In fact, we can even see the latent lawlessness in the claim that it is actually OK to "error"; just as long as it is "on the side of Law". That is actually a form of lawlessness! Because it lways ends up that the person comitting the "error" decides for himself what is bends or does not bend the law; just like "corban".This is precisely the mindset that Christ and Paul attacked all over the NT. AND; it also is precisely what the "rest in Christ" in Heb.4 is NOT! This "just to be on the safe side" mentality is exactly what one is to "rest" FROM.
Ironic that claims of "legalism" were actually thrown at me for a long while here; but this makes it further clear who the legalist really is…. Once again, in the rush, I forgot to mention the obvious point that I have been through this "hardship" before, leaving one job, and losing another over it… You all have produced no scripture telling us to put ourselves through this burden today. Just Creation; Exodus, and Isaiah. Everything BUT NT instruction!

You shouldn’t take my statements out of context Eric; my previous response concerned the time of the end, Yahshua’s return. The text in Matthew chapter seven is addressing Yahshua return and the problem that besets the people of this time, which is not the legalism of the Jews at Yahshua’s first advent. It is lawlessness that is the problem of our time, also confirmed in 2 Timothy 3:1-7, and not legalism. Even a shallow investigation of the contemporary churches verifies that the problems that exist concerning the law certainly do not in the slightest approach any form of legalism, but follow after Antinomianism. (Of course we are speaking of the majority, because the majority certainly does not keep the fourth commandment.) Lawlessness is epitomized by Antinomianism and not legalism; you are erroneously asserting to make the two the same thing. And it was in this context that I made my statement that it is preferable, then, to strive to uphold the law than to walk after Antinomianism.

Antinomianism is not concerned with standing or rank in the law because they see the law as superfluous and capricious. My position is that this Antinomian view is part of your doctrine because you believe that it’s OK to deny the standing or rank that Yah gave the fourth commandment by placing it side by side with the greatest moral law. Your doctrine upholds that His act of placing the fourth commandment with the greatest laws was superfluous and capricious. It is contradictory to say one understands the issue of rank or standing and then deny that it was with purpose that Yah placed the fourth commandment side by side with the greatest of all the commandments, which is the whole object of standing.

As to instruction, again, you come from a legalist point of view. The Old Testament and Covenant DID NOT go into lengthy instructions on how to keep the fourth commandment, and that is why legalism reared it head. Consequently, instruction is not a valid argument. As I previously stated, it may be ironic but not without common occurrence that many who reject the standing of the fourth attempt to argue through legalism. Yahshua magnified the fourth to reveal great liberty in the law, but did not condone what had already been briefly disparaged in the OT and that was personal commerce.

And I don’t agree with you on the issue of hardship. It is a hardship to honor our parents in this contemporary society and take care of them in their old age by not leaving it to society’s solutions. Hardship does not circumvent the validity of the fifth commandment, nor does hardship invalidate the standing of the fourth commandment.

Michael

 

[Eric B]

Eric, are you intentionally attempting NOT to understand what my point is so that you don’t have to address it or what? Again, my point was that you haven’t proven that “universal law” is the object when THE LAW is addressed in scripture OR that the fourth commandment fell under the criterion of the law that was cancelled. The “law of the covenant” represented the 613 laws that were the object of THE CHANGE and not some extraneous identity to “universal law”. The CHANGE IN THE LAW ONLY CONCERNS the 613 laws of the Old Covenant and not any frivolous identity to “universal law”. It’s sad that I have to repeat myself and you still don’t address the issue.

The CHANGE IN THE LAW cancelled only that law which was a weak shadow, imperfect and unprofitable of the 613 laws—while the law that was profitable and perfect was written in the heart and mind of the New Covenant people. You have yet to show that the fourth commandment was a weak shadow that was imperfect and unprofitable.

The reason you attempt to import the alien and frivolous idea of “universal law” is because the Sabbath is not included in this frivolous identity, which aids in your attempt to uphold unsound doctrine concerning standing in the law and the fourth commandment.

The point is that you attempt to transfer some part of the ceremonial law into the New Covenant is to uphold the untenable idea that the spirit of the law is kept while the letter was done away with in the New Covenant, but no such thing is supported in the NT. The focus changed to the spirit but the letter is still valid: the letter of “thou shalt not kill” is still written in the heart as well as the spirit of “love thy neighbor as thyself” and etcetera; that is how the law is magnified. That there was always a spiritual intent that was greater than the letter did not change from one covenant to another. That the NT’s focus is upon the spirit simply does not address “how the law changed” either since the letter of the laws that were not cancelled was magnified concurrently.

That many missed the spirit of the law does not preclude that it didn’t exist, which supports that Yah’s rest was CONCURRENT with the rest in Yahshua, which is of faith. Chapter eleven of the same book supports this also. Consequently, your assertion that you could show from this text that the fourth commandment prefigured something completely falls on its face. Again, you need to show me these texts and exegesis that reveals the fourth commandment as a shadow or was typical, or that it pointed forward to anything.

This response is so like the rest of your work; you actually end up acknowledging the premise of my assertion and then still attempt to deny it at the same time. (This is why your belief system must re-interpret terms such as “cancellation”, “the law” and “standing”.) You acknowledged that one is more severe which means that some law was greater than another in the Mosaic Covenant. It was Yahweh’s criterion, not mine, that placed the fourth commandment with the greatest moral precepts of the Mosaic covenant and not one of the other precepts was to be considered weak, unprofitable or imperfect. What is unsound doctrine is attempting to assert that Yah commits acts of caprice and is arbitrary in His providence. Unsound doctrine upholds that the Spirit was capricious concerning the issue of standing and that is was a superfluous act by Yah to place the fourth commandment along side the greatest moral precepts of all?

You have yet to show through the scriptures that the fourth commandment fell under the criterion in Hebrews a

nd that it was a weak shadow, imperfect and unprofitable.

These quotes are FULL of contradiction. You criticize me for separating "universal law" from the "weak shadows" as a "frivolous alien idea", but then you go and do the same thing, only you set a different criteria, and you have not given one scripture that expounds on this concept of "standing" regarding the Ten. Basically, you are using the same old circular fallacy you have always used, that the sabbath is universal because it is in the Decalogue, because all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue is made up of universal commands.
You can use all of the big educated sounding speech and talk down to my "belief system" you want, but if you cannot find a scripture that says "The Ten Commandments are the perfect, perennial unit, and the Sabbath's placement in the middle of them makes it the greatest (or at least proves it is perennial also), then it's all just a lot of "vain babbling" as Paul calls it (regarding those trying to push the Law on Christians). You cannot accuse me of making God "capricious" or "arbitrary" when He has never said Himself what you are saying. You don't just assign some meaning to scripture, and then say it is capricious if someone holds it to not be that way for lack of evidence (as if you were the God who wrote the scripture).
You call my idea alien, but this is what the Church has understood for millennia as to why we do not keep the Law, and while that alone does not prove it is right; it certainly proves that I did not just make it up (as you keep speaking regarding "your [MY] belief system"). It is a tried and true understanding of the Law, and even the Orthodox Jews understand that the sabbath is only for them! On the other hand you're the one introducing some totally new spin I have never heard of, and not even the other sabbathkeepers have said alot of this stuff!

Another point, regarding "the letter and the spirit were always concurrent" is that When Jesus addressed Murder and Adultery in the sermon, He did not simply say "I said to your fathers 'thou shalt not commit adultery', and now I add a greater emphasis to the fact that you shall not lust either". Instead; He says "You have heard that it was said by them of old time...but now I say unto you...". This shows that this was a different law, and not merely a rehash of the same one they had, though it included some of the precepts. Yes, the spiritual intent was in effect all along, but the letter did not actually mention it (since it was written on the conscience), so in that respect alone, the Letter, even as it covered the perennial moral commands WAS "imperfect and weak"! This is why the laws had to be written on the heart as well.

Meanwhile, with all of this, and repeating the charge that I have not shown that the sabbath was weak; you have yet to show that the sabbath is a perennial command evidenced by it being naturally written on man's conscience, and now also written on believer's hearts. If you can't do that, then your own lack of an answer is the proof that it is not perennial!

Yes it does answer your point that “cancellation” did not “just thrown away” the sacrificial system, to paraphrase your original point. Yahshua fulfills the shadows under the new order of the Melchisedec priesthood and not the Mosaic order according to scripture. The Mosaic ceremonial law lost its standing at law at the cross otherwise the animal sacrifices would have continued to be recognized by Yah, but the scriptures clearly state that where there is remission of sin there in NO MORE offering for sin, which means an end, not a continuation.

It is a non sequitur that something is “cancelled” that is to “continue”. Something that is cancelled ends and does not continue. It is clear that you always have to resort to some re-interpretation of the term “cancel” as “to relax and carry on”, which is by definition contradictory and erroneous.

If Jesus fulfills the sacrificial system, and the Melchizedek priesthood replaces the Mosaic priesthood, then the animal sacrifices would not continue, but the intent of them still holds: remission of sin. If we have remission of sin, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, then the principle of the old sacrifices is still being fulfilled. That's all I am saying. Christ is our "sacrifice", not our "non-sacrifice". You are the one making God capricious and arbitrary by trying so hard to divorce the concepts. If Christ did not fulfill that system, then we have no remission of sins. I do not see why that is so hard to understand, but it seems you must block it out in order to hold to your accusation that I am just making up some "alien belief system" out of nowhere.

 

[Eric B]

And I suppose that cancel doesn’t really mean cancel, or that “the law” in scripture doesn’t really mean the Mosaic Law? It would be helpful if you were to correct your interpretation of the aforementioned before I would accept your view of Colossians above. The “Sabbath days” (I noticed you dropped the plural) in Colossians are linked to meat, drink, new moon offerings that were “a shadow of things to come”—which all point to the sabbaths of Leviticus chapter 23, because of yet you have not produced the scriptural evidence that the fourth commandment prefigured anything and it certainly wasn’t linked to meat, drink and new moon offerings. Memorials point backwards not forward! There is not one place in the NT where it states that the fourth commandment was done away with at the cross, and what Yah has sanctified let no man desecrate without the specific command by Yah that its holiness has abated.

That passage does not say the sabbath days "were linked to" the "meat, drink, new moon offerings". Now, you're adding what is not there. It LISTS "the sabbath" ("days" is italicized and therefore added by translators) SIDE BY SIDE with not only the offerings, but ALSO "a holy day"; which is the annual sabbaths. Once again, it is not only offerings that were shadows, and if you understood this scripture and others like Heb.4 properly, than it would all fall into place, but as long as you approach the scriptures with the preconceived bias of your being able to claim keeping a "forgotten commandment" that everyone else has missed, then you will continue to reject this plain teaching.

Really, you do go on, but all that you’ve stated does not preclude that circumcision was bound to the Passover and the civil law in the Mosaic covenant. In the former, IT IS covered in Hebrews seven through ten, in the latter it was suspended when the crown was taken.

Here, you're just doing that "repeat the memorized (already answered) response" routine again. You have not even given a single proof-text illustrating your assertion. If you have to resort to this so often, then you heed to reassess your whole belief system, because it obviously ain't cutting it!
You're claiming that "all I have said does not preclude", but we're not talking about mere hypothesis that "could be true"; (now let's see if the evidence favors or disfavors ("precludes") it). Since you have used this as an answer to another point I have made, you have to show that the scriptures teach it, not simply "allow for it".

You shouldn’t take my statements out of context Eric; my previous response concerned the time of the end, Yahshua’s return. The text in Matthew chapter seven is addressing Yahshua return and the problem that besets the people of this time, which is not the legalism of the Jews at Yahshua’s first advent. It is lawlessness that is the problem of our time, also confirmed in 2 Timothy 3:1-7, and not legalism. Even a shallow investigation of the contemporary churches verifies that the problems that exist concerning the law certainly do not in the slightest approach any form of legalism, but follow after Antinomianism. (Of course we are speaking of the majority, because the majority certainly does not keep the fourth commandment.) Lawlessness is epitomized by Antinomianism and not legalism; you are erroneously asserting to make the two the same thing. And it was in this context that I made my statement that it is preferable, then, to strive to uphold the law than to walk after Antinomianism.

Antinomianism is not concerned with standing or rank in the law because they see the law as superfluous and capricious. My position is that this Antinomian view is part of your doctrine because you believe that it’s OK to deny the standing or rank that Yah gave the fourth commandment by placing it side by side with the greatest moral law. Your doctrine upholds that His act of placing the fourth commandment with the greatest laws was superfluous and capricious. It is contradictory to say one understands the issue of rank or standing and then deny that it was with purpose that Yah placed the fourth commandment side by side with the greatest of all the commandments, which is the whole object of standing.

As to instruction, again, you come from a legalist point of view. The Old Testament and Covenant DID NOT go into lengthy instructions on how to keep the fourth commandment, and that is why legalism reared it head. Consequently, instruction is not a valid argument. As I previously stated, it may be ironic but not without common occurrence that many who reject the standing of the fourth attempt to argue through legalism. Yahshua magnified the fourth to reveal great liberty in the law, but did not condone what had already been briefly disparaged in the OT and that was personal commerce.

"The time of the end". Just like all the others say. "What you are doing is the mark of the beast, but not yet. Meanwhile, I can judge you for it now, but don't accuse me of judging you, because Jesus won't judge you until the time of the end". Whatever.

And if you think antinomianism is a "bigger problem" than legalism, then that all the more proves you are the legalist, because it is the legalists who are always making a similar lament about how "lawless" the present time is, (as if the past was "good") which comes from ignoring the sin of themselves, and their "heritage" (the past history of their movement or culture/civilization).
I would say the problems are equal, and actually propel people from one side to the other like a pendulum. Legalists are overly strict (but then full of hidden lawlessness, and thus hypocrisy), so then people rebel and say "why profess law at all; just do whatever you want" (antinomianism). This creates anarchy, so "conservatives" say "SEE! WE were right all along", and then try to all the more push tighter rules "just to be safe". THIS is why legalism reared its head. Just look at all of the other debates here: old-line fundies judging us over music styles and Bible translations, Catholics and Church of Christ trying to prove salvation by works, all of the groups who keep annual sabbaths and say you're as deceived as the sabbathbreakers for not keeping them, and you think legalism is not as big a problem?

And you're still trying to thrown the charge of "legalism" back at me, but recall, you're the one who spoke of being on the "safe side"--"better to err on the side of Law". That is legalistic thinking! Don't try to back out of it now. So now you're saying "the only restriction ever really placed on the sabbath was personal commerce". But that's not what it says! It says "NO WORK". Whether "commerce" or not. Isaiah then adds "not your own pleasure". That also actually does not say "commerce" (which to many is not even "pleasure", but rather a bare necessity to survive). If you were really "trying to err on the side of the Law", you would not be taking such a chance that you can argue on the internet on the day and think that is really either sabbath rest or "doing [necessary] good for the Kingdom"; thus making such a "we can push our liberty to do as much as we can without actually violating the rule: no commerce" argument. Once again, that was the heart of the legalists' thinking, yet is at its root concerned with how much you can get away with and still meet the technical requirement of the letter (interpreted convenienetly by the person). That is at its heart, lawless, and it shows, just as you have said, the utter irony of the lawlwss arguing through legalism. Only it is not me, but rather yourself you have described! All of this was why the letter was "weak" in the first place.
Then, you claim the "perennial" commands are "magnified" (to prove that the sabbath cannot be "relaxed"), yet we see that with the sabbath, we are given "great liberty" instead. How is that "magnified"? Even if you argue that this was the way it was supposed to be, still, how is it "magnified" now? What greater spiritual restrictions are highlighted that the Jews had missed?
You then point out that the examples Jesus gives us show that technical "work" is to be done, as long as it is "doing good for the Kingdom". So then the literal (LETTER) command of "NO WORK" then must be "weak and unprofitable". You try to cover this by saying "commerce". But even if that was true, then that would pass with the crown (as well as circumcision), because we do not have our own theocratic nation now. This is proven by the next point, regarding Gentiles

 

[Eric B]

And I don’t agree with you on the issue of hardship. It is a hardship to honor our parents in this contemporary society and take care of them in their old age by not leaving it to society’s solutions. Hardship does not circumvent the validity of the fifth commandment, nor does hardship invalidate the standing of the fourth commandment.

I didn't say it does, but then neither does it prove that your practice is correct, and mandtory for everyone else. As I said, I would not have turned from it, after going though all of that, if the arguments for it weren't found to be so flimsy. Once again, as far as hardships, the fact that of all of those gentiles coming into the Church, from a pagan culture that did not honor the sabbath, and with masters who would make them work on it, we do not see one single instance of any issue in this regards. No admonition to keep enduring the persecution from masters for refusing to work (which we would have definitly had, and no, you can't use just any reference to persecution not specifying the sabbath to prove this). No instruction on how to keep it, on nit being too soft, not being too strict, etc.

 

[Michaeneu]

These quotes are FULL of contradiction. You criticize me for separating "universal law" from the "weak shadows" as a "frivolous alien idea"... you have not given one scripture that expounds on this concept of "standing"regarding the Ten.... using the same old circular fallacy… if you cannot find a scripture that says "The Ten Commandments are the perfect, perennial unit, and the Sabbath's placement in the middle of them makes it the greatest (or at least proves it is perennial also... You call my idea alien, but this is what the Church has understood for millennia… When Jesus addressed Murder and Adultery in the sermon… He says "You have heard that it was said by them of old time...but now I say unto you...". This shows that this was a different law…
Meanwhile… repeating the charge that I have not shown that the sabbath was weak; you have yet to show that the sabbath is a perennial command evidenced by it being naturally written on man's conscience, and now also written on believer's hearts. If you can't do that, then your own lack of an answer is the proof that it is not perennial!

Let’s look at how Wikipedia defines circular reasoning or, as they put it, “begging the question”:

Wikipedia: Begging the question:
In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: "Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this." Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition—in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy"—in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

IF my premise were STRICTLY that the fourth commandment is perennial because it is part of the Decalogue then that would be begging the question or a circular fallacy. My premise IS NOT a circular fallacy because it is sustained deductively through STANDING in the law brought forth in many scriptures (some of which even you conceded) and the criterion of the law that was cancelled in the book of Hebrews. Both standing and the criterion are related but different issues than the matter of merely being part of the Decalogue. It is apparent that you don’t understand exactly what a circular fallacy is, which I’ve attempted to share with you before. It is also apparent that you need to do some in depth study upon circular reasoning.

Even you acknowledged STANDING in your prior response when you conceded that offence of “one is more severe" than another, in reference to the greatest commandment against the second likened unto it: Matthew 22:36-40. Offence against the FIRST is greater than offence against the second: concession noted! Some commandments are greater than others; that’s standing. Transgression against thou shalt not have any other gods, or making graven images and etcetera are greater offences than transgressions against our neighbor; this is why Yahshua gave them ORDINAL STANDING or RANK. Loving Yah is the FIRST and greatest commandment upon which hung thou shalt not have any other gods, or making graven images and etcetera. Second to these commandments hung the commandments concerning our neighbor. The STANDING of the Decalogue is clearly brought forth in the scriptures such as Matthew chapter five and the texts quoted above in same book.

STANDING concerning the Decalogue is clearly brought forth in the OT also through the evidence that the Decalogue was written by the finger of Yah, audibly given by Him to the whole congregation, kept apart from the ceremonial and civil law in the ark, and etcetera. Again, a circular fallacy does not support its premise with numerous deductive evidences.

If the Decalogue WERE NOT to be taken as a unit by STANDING then one has to reason from scripture that all 613 commandments were of equal rank and that Yah’s act of placing the fourth commandment together with the greatest of all commandments was a superfluous act of caprice and His purpose in providence is arbitrary. For someone who states that he understands the issue of STANDING the aforementioned is contradictory and based upon unsound doctrine and exegesis because one can’t even speak in terms of the “greatest” if the 613 laws were of equal rank or STANDING.

Separating “universal” law from the weak shadows is not the frivolous matter concerning your doctrine, but the imported idea that we are to interpret to the law written in the heart of the Ethnos for the covenant law that changed. That the Ethnos had some part of the law written in their heart is incidental or frivolous to the issue of THE LAW OF THE COVENANT, not momentous as you are attempting to imply.(It is also noteworthy to address the perception of the law “written in the heart” concerning the Ethnos in Romans chapter two. It would be frivolous to interpret that it was written in any greater capacity than it was written with the covenant people—quite the opposite. Paul is addressing the hypocrites among the Jews, but not all Jews were hypocrites.)This is what makes the issue of “universal law” as it was know to the Ethnos frivolous concerning the issue of HOW THE LAW CHANGED. The object of how the law changed relates strictly to the covenant law and the covenant people, which do not represent some identity to “universal law” as given to the Ethnos.

As to orthodoxy, you are right; duration of wrong exegesis does not make it right; the papacy is prima fascia evidence of this. Historically there has always been a minority of seventh-day Sabbath keepers, but then again, majority consensus is a poor excuse for poor exegesis. Clearly, your belief system has some great discrepancies with the scriptures as I’ve pointed out and if you can’t reconcile them then the problem lies with your doctrine, not mine.

As to your interpretation of “but now I say unto you”, that is nothing more than magnification of the law. The focus changed to the spirit but the letter is still valid: the letter of “thou shalt not kill” is still written in the heart as well as the spirit of “love thy neighbor as thyself” and etcetera; that is how the law is magnified. That there was always a spiritual intent that was greater than the letter did not change from one covenant to another. That the NT’s focus is upon the spirit simply does not address “how the law changed” either since the letter of the laws that were not cancelled is magnified concurrently.

Concerning the criterion of HOW the law changed you have yet to show that the fourth commandment was a weak shadow that was unprofitable and imperfect. Obviously Hebrew chapter four does nothing to support such a notion and Colossians 2:14-17 actually supports the criterion given in Hebrews because the list of ceremonial oblations in Colossians were “a shadow of good things to come” from the perspective of the Old Covenant. The sabbath days (from when the italicizes word comes from) in Leviticus chapter twenty-three satisfies the sabbath days in Colossians. The ceremonial list of oblations is followed with an adjective clause, WHICH ARE, that introduces and noun clause that modifies the list. The sabbaths in Colossians chapter two are modified to represent shadows. As I stated previously you have yet to show in the scriptures that the Sabbath prefigured anything. The Sabbath is revealed as a MEMORIAL in scripture, not a shadow that prefigures something! Memorials point backwards not forward! There is not one place in the NT where it states that the fourth commandment was done away with at the cross because it was a weak shadow that was unprofitable and imperfect, and what Yah has sanctified let no man desecrate without the specific command by Yah that its holiness has abated.

As to the forth commandment being written it the heart of the believer, since you or I can’t look into the heart and mind of the believer this evidence is not PRIVY to either of us. But what is PRIVY to both of us is that in order to uphold your doctrine we must reason from scripture that all 613 commandments were of equal rank and that Yah’s act of placing the fourth commandment together with the greatest of all commandments was a superfluous act of caprice and His purpose in providence is arbitrary. For someone who states that he understands the issue of STANDING and the criterion of how the law changed the aforementioned is contradictory and based upon unsound doctrine and exegesis.

 

[Michaeneu]

If Jesus fulfills the sacrificial system, and the Melchizedek priesthood replaces the Mosaic priesthood, then the animal sacrifices would not continue, but the intent of them still holds: remission of sin. If we have remission of sin, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, then the principle of the old sacrifices is still being fulfilled. That's all I am saying. Christ is our "sacrifice", not our "non-sacrifice". You are the one making God capricious and arbitrary by trying so hard to divorce the concepts. If Christ did not fulfill that system, then we have no remission of sins. I do not see why that is so hard to understand, but it seems you must block it out in order to hold to your accusation that I am just making up some "alien belief system" out of nowhere.

Until you understand that everyone’s sins WERE remitted by ONE ACT of the new Melchisedec order (the very first act of the Melchisedec order), then you’ll continue an attempt to transfer some part of the ceremonial law into the New Covenant to uphold the untenable idea that the spirit of the law is kept while the letter was done away in the New Covenant. We no longer HAVE the remission of sin because they WERE ALREADY remitted, even the elect who have not yet been born.

“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Hebrews 9:24-26

The remission of sin is past tense, fulfilled, not a continuing action that upholds this untenable doctrine of yours that the letter was “relaxed” for the spirit of the law.

That passage does not say the sabbath days "were linked to" the "meat, drink, new moon offerings". Now, you're adding what is not there. It LISTS "the sabbath" ("days" is italicized and therefore added by translators) SIDE BY SIDE with not only the offerings, but ALSO "a holy day"; which is the annual sabbaths. Once again, it is not only offerings that were shadows, and if you understood this scripture and others like Heb.4 properly, than it would all fall into place, but as long as you approach the scriptures with the preconceived bias of your being able to claim keeping a "forgotten commandment" that everyone else has missed, then you will continue to reject this plain teaching.

No, what it does state concerning the Sabbath in question is that they were “a shadow of good things to come” from the perspective of the Old Covenant. The sabbath days (from when the italicizes word comes from) in Leviticus chapter twenty-three satisfies the sabbath days in Colossians. The ceremonial list of oblations is followed with an adjective clause, WHICH ARE, that introduces and noun clause that modifies the list. The sabbath days in question are linked to shadows that prefigured something good! The sabbaths in Colossians chapter two are modified by the noun clause to represent shadows. As I stated previously you have yet to show in the scriptures that the fourth commandment prefigured anything. The Sabbath or fourth commandment is revealed as a MEMORIAL in scripture, not a shadow that prefigures something! Memorials point backwards not forward! There is nothing added by my exegesis, while yours takes away from what the texts truly states.

Here, you're just doing that "repeat the memorized (already answered) response" routine again. You have not even given a single proof-text illustrating your assertion. If you have to resort to this so often, then you heed to reassess your whole belief system, because it obviously ain't cutting it!
You're claiming that "all I have said does not preclude", but we're not talking about mere hypothesis that "could be true"; (now let's see if the evidence favors or disfavors ("precludes") it). Since you have used this as an answer to another point I have made, you have to show that the scriptures teach it, not simply "allow for it".

I repeat what hasn’t been properly refuted by you or others. I gave you the texts in Exodus and Leviticus that support that circumcision was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and the civil law. In the former, IT WAS covered in Hebrews seven through ten, in the latter it was suspended when the crown was taken. You have yet to properly or overwhelmingly refute the aforementioned.

 

[Michaeneu]

"The time of the end". Just like all the others say…. And if you think antinomianism is a "bigger problem" than legalism… proves you are the legalist…. it is the legalists who are always making a similar lament about how "lawless" the present time is, (as if the past was "good")…. I would say the problems are equal… Legalists are overly strict… full of hidden lawlessness, and thus hypocrisy)….

And you're still trying to thrown the charge of "legalism" back at me, but recall, you're the one who spoke of being on the "safe side"--"better to err on the side of Law". That is legalistic thinking! Don't try to back out of it now. So now you're saying "the only restriction ever really placed on the sabbath was personal commerce". But that's not what it says! It says "NO WORK". Whether "commerce" or not. Isaiah then adds "not your own pleasure". That also actually does not say "commerce" (which to many is not even "pleasure", but rather a bare necessity to survive). If you were really "trying to err on the side of the Law", you would not be taking such a chance that you can argue on the internet on the day and think that is really either sabbath rest or "doing [necessary] good for the Kingdom"….

Then, you claim the "perennial" commands are "magnified" (to prove that the sabbath cannot be "relaxed"), yet we see that with the sabbath, we are given "great liberty" instead. How is that "magnified"?

One can attempt to stick their head in the sand concerning the lawlessness of our time, but it certainly cannot be upheld that legalism is a problem with the majority of the Christians believing as you do that the Ten Commandments were, as you put it, NEVER a perfect perennial unit (at least not until the issue of the Sabbath rears itself). It becomes easily upheld that legalism is not a major problem with the majority of Christianity today, but to deny that lawlessness abounds today is a denial of the abortion statistics, divorce statistics, the crime statistics and I could go on and on. But I did not merely rely on such criterion but quoted scripture that supports that, “in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof…” 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

All of the above is in the nature of antinomianism, lawlessness, not legalism. Legalism is a problem with those who are jealous for the law but percentile wise those who are jealous for the law are but a minority in Christendom. For this reason legalism is simply not a personal problem with your belief system; antinomianism is. While I have no problem admitting that legalism can be a personal problem in my belief system (doesn’t have to be though, because legalism wasn’t a problem for Yahshua who fulfilled the law); nevertheless, your belief system relies on legalism against any who uphold the perennial nature of the fourth commandment.

Your legalist view of the law is revealed immediately when you interpret “magnify” to mean severity or mortification, which is simply not the meaning, otherwise the law would not be called “the perfect law of liberty”.

“So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” James 2:12

Of course the context is the commandments of the stone tables, and this certainly applies to the forth commandment that frees us from toil (buying merchandise, which causes others to labor, or selling our labor) in a perennial periodic rest for the benefit of our minds and bodies and our relation with Yah. It is your belief system that must associate magnification with severity and mortification concerning the fourth commandment in order to place a stigma upon the commandment, which is nothing less than an expedient, legalist argument for the sake of a psychological edge. And don’t confuse hardship with severity or mortification because the SOURCE of hardship is society NOT the law. Society reviles the righteousness of those who TRULY uphold the covenant law of Yah, while the law grants the covenant keeper true peace and liberty even in the midst of hardship from those who hate Yah’s law.

Yes, I’d rather error on the side of the law than pursue the antinomianism of your belief system, which too often resorts to legalism to expedite its arguments against the law. It is the tenets of antinomianism and legalism that twists upholding the holiness of the Sabbath on the Sabbath as unlawful. Again, I have Yahshua example and testimony; you have neither. And of course it never entered your mind that I was speaking of erring on the side of liberality, which is contrary to legalism, but which also strives to hit the mark concerning the law.

I didn't say it does, but then neither does it prove that your practice is correct, and mandtory for everyone else. As I said, I would not have turned from it, after going though all of that, if the arguments for it weren't found to be so flimsy. Once again, as far as hardships, the fact that of all of those gentiles coming into the Church, from a pagan culture that did not honor the sabbath, and with masters who would make them work on it, we do not see one single instance of any issue in this regards. No admonition to keep enduring the persecution from masters for refusing to work (which we would have definitly had, and no, you can't use just any reference to persecution not specifying the sabbath to prove this). No instruction on how to keep it, on nit being too soft, not being too strict, etc.

It wasn’t I that brought up the issue of hardship as an excuse for the abrogation of the fourth commandment; it was you that did that. In truth, my experience was that it caused a hardship with the world, but it was a personal blessing by Yah. So I say, to hell with the world; I’d rather receive the blessing for obedience. Again, your continued cry for instructions is nothing but a common resort to legalism by the same tenets of antinomianism.

Michael

 

[Eric B]

Let’s look at how Wikipedia defines circular reasoning or, as they put it, “begging the question”:

IF my premise were STRICTLY that the fourth commandment is perennial because it is part of the Decalogue then that would be begging the question or a circular fallacy. My premise IS NOT a circular fallacy because it is sustained deductively through STANDING in the law brought forth in many scriptures (some of which even you conceded) and the criterion of the law that was cancelled in the book of Hebrews. Both standing and the criterion are related but different issues than the matter of merely being part of the Decalogue. It is apparent that you don’t understand exactly what a circular fallacy is, which I’ve attempted to share with you before. It is also apparent that you need to do some in depth study upon circular reasoning.

Even you acknowledged STANDING in your prior response when you conceded that offence of “one is more severe" than another, in reference to the greatest commandment against the second likened unto it: Matthew 22:36-40. Offence against the FIRST is greater than offence against the second: concession noted! Some commandments are greater than others; that’s standing. Transgression against thou shalt not have any other gods, or making graven images and etcetera are greater offences than transgressions against our neighbor; this is why Yahshua gave them ORDINAL STANDING or RANK. Loving Yah is the FIRST and greatest commandment upon which hung thou shalt not have any other gods, or making graven images and etcetera. Second to these commandments hung the commandments concerning our neighbor. The STANDING of the Decalogue is clearly brought forth in the scriptures such as Matthew chapter five and the texts quoted above in same book.

STANDING concerning the Decalogue is clearly brought forth in the OT also through the evidence that the Decalogue was written by the finger of Yah, audibly given by Him to the whole congregation, kept apart from the ceremonial and civil law in the ark, and etcetera. Again, a circular fallacy does not support its premise with numerous deductive evidences.

And that definition of "circular reasoning is EXACTLY what your argument is, BECAUSE of the simple fact that your "dedictive evidences" are shallow and non-conclusive! For you ASSERT these things here, with proof texts, but these texts DO NOT SAY what you are asserting. Where do any of those scriptures say that 1) being written by the finger of God 2) audibly given by Him 3) kept inside the ark, means that the whole unit of the Ten is perennial? Where does a scripture say at all that all ten are perennial, period? Your answer for this has always been to point out that the other commandments in it are perennial, but the scriptures do not say this, so then you come up with your accusation that this would make God "capricious and arbitrary" otherwise. But where do you get that assertion from? Not from any scripture, but rather your own "deductive reasoning". But God can speak for Himself. He doesn't need you to define what His intent is, when He has said no such thing. You can't just assert this all stuff and then hold it up as "deductive evidence" without the slightest scriptural proof that that was what was meant for it to point to. That is nothing more than your own THEORY, and you keep insisting that this is a given, hence the definition you quoted:
it relies upon its own proposition—in this case, "[these things are deductive reasoning]"—in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.
You proved my very point!


And last time, I forgot to make an very important challenge your claim that I "made a concession" you your view. First of all, I have never denied that there is standing in the Law, and all this time you keep arguing for standing, and "antinomians see the Law as frivolous because they don't recognize standing", and all that stuff, but that is a lie. Our difference is not that I do not recognize standing, but that we have different beliefs as to what the standing is. I have shown the scriptures own differentiation between the orginal universal seven laws ("called the "Noahide" laws) and then the letter of the Law of Moses versus the spirit of the Law of Christ, but you reject this and have come up with a new unique way to try to prove that the the division is simply between the Ten and "the rest". So stop trying to prove "standing" to me. I know there is standing on the Law. Else how could I believe some laws like the sabbath ceased while others continue in the first place?

What I said before regarding "severity" was no "concession", because the examples you pull do not even match what we are discussing! You are trying to prove that the Ten are greater than all of the other LAws, but what we were discussing was not the difference between one of the Ten and one of the others, but rather a distinction within one of the Ten itself: that blasphemy against the Spirit is more severe than blasphemy against the Son. What does this have to do with whether "the Ten" are greater than "the 613"? Just like Christ's mention of "the least", you snatch up anything you can find; just look for a word that you think pertains to the issue, and take it and run wild with it, and you call that "deductive evidence"???
I'm sorry, but not only have you not shown your version of "standing", but this method all the more illustrates utter desperation to prove your point by any means necessary.

If the Decalogue WERE NOT to be taken as a unit by STANDING then one has to reason from scripture that all 613 commandments were of equal rank and that Yah’s act of placing the fourth commandment together with the greatest of all commandments was a superfluous act of caprice and His purpose in providence is arbitrary. For someone who states that he understands the issue of STANDING the aforementioned is contradictory and based upon unsound doctrine and exegesis because one can’t even speak in terms of the “greatest” if the 613 laws were of equal rank or STANDING.

Once again; you have me denying any standing at all and then build this whole case from it, which is obviously a falsehood, because how then could I believe that the sabbath is no longer binding if I believe all 613 are of "equal rank"? It then would continue too! You're not even thinking about what you are saying, you're just spewing out every accusation that comes to your mind, no matter how contradictory.
The Ten Commandments were given to Israel as part of their covenant, along with the rest of the 613. He can include whichever Laws that He wants in it, and later revoke them in a new covenant, and He has not assigned Michael as His senior editor to dictate otherwise.

Separating “universal” law from the weak shadows is not the frivolous matter concerning your doctrine, but the imported idea that we are to interpret to the law written in the heart of the Ethnos for the covenant law that changed. That the Ethnos had some part of the law written in their heart is incidental or frivolous to the issue of THE LAW OF THE COVENANT, not momentous as you are attempting to imply.(It is also noteworthy to address the perception of the law “written in the heart” concerning the Ethnos in Romans chapter two. It would be frivolous to interpret that it was written in any greater capacity than it was written with the covenant people—quite the opposite. Paul is addressing the hypocrites among the Jews, but not all Jews were hypocrites.)This is what makes the issue of “universal law” as it was know to the Ethnos frivolous concerning the issue of HOW THE LAW CHANGED. The object of how the law changed relates strictly to the covenant law and the covenant people, which do not represent some identity to “universal law” as given to the Ethnos.

The "covenant Law" you keep talking about was for the Old Covenant of Israel. Israel broke that Covenant, and God then ended it. The universal Laws that existed among the "ethnos" were all that were left (and of course, they included some of the Laws given to Israel). God then instituted a NEW covenant, where there IS NO longer any distinction between "Israelite" and "ethnos". So what do we have now? The original Noahide Laws, now written on man's conscience and in believers' hearts. The Old Covenant Law does not simply TRANSFER over to the New. Only the perennial moral laws do.The rest of the Laws were shadows that poiunt to spiritual realities, also written on our hearts. THIS is "How the Law Changed", and you need to stop making up your own story to prove that you are better than everyone for keeping some "forgotten commandment".