The Sabbath is a commandment for all of God's people

So we"ve come to Pro"s final post and he still hasn"t given us an explanation of Hebrews 7:12, 18; 8:7, 13; Ephesians 2:15; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:24-30 or Colossians 2:14-17. He told me "You assume that Ephesians 2:15 and Hebrews 7:12 speak of Mosaic Law," but he didn"t tell us directly which law these verses are about. Maybe this is because if he admits they were talking about the Mosaic law, then he"d have to admit that"s the law being abolished in those verses? But if he says its talking about a different law, then he has to admit that God has more than one law in the Bible, and therefore he can no longer assume that when the Bible commands Christians to keep the law that it has to be, and can only be, the law of Moses. So to escape these two positions, he avoided giving an explanation of Ephesians 2:15 and Hebrews 7:12 altogether. Then he says: "Yet when Yeshua speaks of the law, you assume it's a 'different law' even though the same word is given. You're fooling yourself. It's the same law. The Greek word for it is the same. " So Pro assumes that because the Greek word for law is the same in both cases, that that"s enough to prove it"s the same law. Well consider please, that the Greek word for "Father" which Jesus applies to God is the same Greek word applied to the Devil in John 8:38 and John 8:44; so if the same word must always mean the same thing, Satan would be God Almighty. The same word often has different meanings, and this is why elohim, the Hebrew word for "God" at Genesis 1:1, also means the false gods of Egypt at Exodus 12:12, so I don"t see why the word "law" must always mean the same law. The Hebrew and Greek words for "covenant" are the same all through Scripture, so does that mean that the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic law covenant, the covenant with Levi, the Davidic covenant, and the New Covenant, are all the same covenant? His method of interpretation would lead us to believe that in Romans 7:25 the law of God and the law of sin is the same law. Pro assumes I"m a Protestant, he assumes wrong. He argues that if the law ended at the cross then the sabbath was binding before that, and Jesus couldn"t break it or he"d be sinning. Yet, he never dealt with John"s statement in John 5:18 that Jesus was BREAKING THE SABBATH. In fact, he says that it was lawful for Jesus to heal on the sabbath, implying the Apostle John was wrong in his comment on Jesus" sabbath breaking. So its Pro, or John, whom should we believe? I"ll go with John " after all, he was there, Pro wasn"t! And by the way, it wasn"t the healing that caused John to say Jesus broke the sabbath, it was the fact that Jesus commanded the man he healed to carry his bed on the sabbath in direct contradiction to Jeremiah 17:21-22 which forbids carrying any load on the sabbath. Isn"t a bed heavy? (John 5:8-11) My opponent didn"t even touch those verses. He just dogmatically refused to believe what the Scriptures said. Obviously, if Jesus is creator of the sabbath, Lord of the sabbath, he has authority to cancel it; and if he, by his very example, abolishes the sabbath, who are we to accuse him of sin as my opponent suggests we could? Jesus himself said that the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are guiltless (Matthew 12:5); why can"t Jesus break the sabbath and be guiltless? He made it, he has the right to destroy it, and he didn"t have to wait for the cross to do so. Matthew 5:18 doesn"t say "one jot or one tittle will be no means pass from the law AND THE PROPHETS till all is fulfilled," it says nothing will pass from "THE LAW till all is fulfilled. " So the condition for the passing away of the law isn"t the fulfillment of all prophecy, but the fulfillment of all the law. So all prophecy doesn"t have to be fulfilled before the law of Moses could be abolished, but all the law has to be fulfilled before it can be abolished. Now Jesus said in verse 17 that he came to fulfill the law; that was his mission, so if Pro doesn"t believe all the law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, he must believe that Jesus failed his mission " that he didn"t fulfill the law, that he didn"t do what he said he came here to do. I"ll leave readers to think on that. Pro now expects me to explain Romans 2:12, 17-23, 25-27; 3:1-2, 31; 7:12, 22, 25; 2 Corinthians 6:14; 12:20-21; 2 Thessalonians 2:7-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11, but yet despite repeated requests he has given us no explanation for Hebrews 7:12, 18; 8:7, 13; Ephesians 2:15; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:24-30 or Colossians 2:14-17! Like Jesus, if you refuse to answer my question, don"t expect me to answer yours. (Matthew 21:23-27) Pro wants to know why Peter had not eaten anything unclean at Acts 10:14, but it doesn"t occur to him that he was wrong. God corrected Peter by telling him: "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. " (vs 15) The same animals Peter just calls unclean, God says are cleansed, but Pro is taking Peter"s side, I side with God. Then Pro actually argues the animals symbolize Gentiles because of verse 28, so I guess he must believe that God wanted Peter to become a cannibal, for in verse 13 God tells Peter "kill, and eat. " Kill and eat humans? Maybe Pro thinks this was a command to kill them spiriturally, but I think we all want to be spiritually alive, not dead. The point Peter learnt was that if he wasn"t to call even the animals unclean, of how much more is a man worth than a pig? So no man should be treated as such either. Now I will prove that Christians are under a different law. Romans 6:14 says we are "not under the law," but 1 Corinthians 9:21 shows we are "under the law to Christ. " Now we can"t both be under, and not under, the same law; so we are not under the law of Moses, but we are under the law of Christ, two separate laws. So there is no reason to assume the words "law" or "commandment" always refer to Old Testament regulations. Pro argues that if I take Mark 7:18-19 literally that I have to take everything in the Bible literally, so if he thinks Mark 7:18-19 is symbolic, does he have to take everything in the Bible symbolically? I take Mark 7:18-19 literally because it was talking about literal food and a literal stomach. Not everything Jesus said was figurative. Pro never told us who were the true church that Jesus built which was keeping the law of Moses for the last 2000 years. Jesus promised his church would remain faithful, so then where was it? The church we know of, the Christian Church, has consistently taught that the law of Moses was abolished over the centuries; so if she is wrong, then has Jesus' promise failed? Pro couldn't even address this issue. Maybe because the movement he is part of cannot identify itself as the church that Jesus built? Well, since this is the last post in this debate, maybe we'll never know.