How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

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".

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".

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" 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.

 

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 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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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!

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??!!

 

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.

 

#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!

 

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

 

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

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.

 

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!

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.

 

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.

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".

"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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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".