Well, you should ask what terms I use for this division, instead of trying to do it for me, and then using it to suggest that I am "Arguing for lawbreaking".
By "Lawkeeping" (should really be cap.) I mean those who insist on a literal application of the OT Law of Moses beyond the universal moral and spiritual laws (Gen. 31:19-36; 3:1-4, 6; 4:8-10-16, 6:11, 9:4-6, 19:1-9; 5-7, 20:3, 31:19), which are also commanded in the NT. The opposite would be "non-Lawkeeping" (which is NOT the same as "lawBREAKING"!), or "non-sabbatarian".
Once again; none of us even preternds to keep the WHOLE Law, and Moody did not even preach the chrief one you argue over, so I don't know why you keep using him. The Church was mistaken for a long time, in saying that we were "under the Law", but then changing the 4th from the seventh day to the first. That was wrong, and most people today recognize it. His version of Christianity is the very one that would argue for your much dreaded "National Sunday Law", so once again, you do not want to hold him up as your true spokesman!
I didn't say NOBODY saw it that way. MOST people here have not argued that Sunday is the Sabbath. One or two may occasionally, but most here say we are not under the OT Law. The point is to argue with those who are here, not Christians from centuries ago. But then, your church's whole "National Sunday Law mark of the Beast" conspiracy theory would fall apart!
Thus "superseded". This is just semantics.
Those aren't simply "two out of 613", but rather the two that the WHOLE LAW hangs on (Matt.22:40). The individual laws themselves can change, as you even acknowledge many ceremonial ones did. But by keeping in principle the two, we establish the wole Law.
"[ceremonially] clean and unclean" is spiritual; not physical. (2 Cor.6:17)
True. Nobody said anything about "bad laws". It was man who was bad, not keeping the Law.
But the SDA, and COG's have claimed it is "the sign" of God. They actually take Ex.31:13 and change it to "the" sign!
No one is using any "Catholic argument". The Catholists claim that their church is the ONLY [ONE] true Church. So they keep throwing up all the "multitudes of disagreeing denominations" to try to prove that only under their authority would there be any unity. We here are not arguing that. Protestants' basic defining doctrine is salvation by faith alone, but they do not hold this up as a particular "sign of God" the way sabbathkeepers do the sabbath. They believe it is necessary to be orthodox, but that is not the same as this talk of a "sign" og God; especially in contrast to the Mark of the Beast!. So the Catholics' arguments against us have nothing toi do with this.
There are many "messianics" who are just regular evangelical groups who meet on the day to reach Jews. I was referring, basically, to the Assemblies and Houses of YHWH ("sacred names"), and the multitude of others in the Directory of Sabbath Observing Groups. They all one-up each other as not keeping the Law right.
You're probably referring to the Denver and Salem groups. The Denver group is a bit more open minded, but they do think the Passover on Nisan 14th is necessary, so they would not agree with the SDA on that. They are officially binitarian, but seem to have opened up on that as well. The Salem group is more exclusive. (It is from them that Armstrong came out of). So you've found one more little group that might accept you. Still, this does not erase the Armstrongs, Sacred Names, etc; all of which claim this one practice ios the sign of God. That is the point.
His people in the OT. They were the ONLY group of people who kept it; so it WAS "the sign". But they did not keep the rest of the Law, so all of that changed with Christ.
But it's your side that keeps using that statement: "Sign of God vs. Mark of the Beast". Just look at Claudia's posts above. You yourself may not have used the exact phrase, but you can't deny that that is what SDA's do say all the time.
Answered above.
BSERVE THE SABBATH