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

My opponent claims that he isn"t disregarding Paul"s teaching, but he is disregarding Paul"s teaching, for he doesn"t believe that that Jesus "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even law of commandments." (Ephesiand 2:15) Pro doesn"t accept that "there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before." (Hebrews 7:18) He disregards the fact that "the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12) Because he disregards these teachings of Paul, he has to make the argument that God"s word, and the words directly spoken by Jesus, take precedence over Paul"s, but paints the picture that he is contrasting God"s word to Paul"s word. Let me ask him this: do you believe that Paul preached his own ideas, or did he preach the word of God? How can God"s word be less worthy of believe when given through a prophet or apostle (like Paul) than when God speaks to us himself? I"ve shown before that the church considered Paul"s word to be scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), and all scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). So when Paul preached, when he wrote to the churches, he wasn"t writing his own uninspired commentary on the Torah and the Gospel of Christ, but was preaching the commandments of God. (1 Corinthians 14:37) As Paul said: "the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ." Then he goes on to relate how Jesus himself met him on the road to Damascus and caused his conversion. (Galatians 1:11-24) There is no way Moses could have written the account of his own death, burial, and mourning at Deuteronomy 34:5-8. This account of the conquest of Laish and the changing of its name to Dan at Judges 18:27-29 is placed in the Bible, immediately after the death of Samson. Now Samson was the twelfth, and last, Judge. The Judges were the rulers of Israel after the death of Joshua. Moses died more than two hundred years before Samson. Thus, the name of the city of Laish was changed to Dan only some two to three centuries after the death of Moses. Genesis 14:14 says: "When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan." This allusion to Dan, is an anachronism, and could not have been written by Moses. The passage could only have been written by someone who lived after the period of the Judges, when Laish had become Dan, more than two hundred years after the death of Moses. We find another anachronism in Genesis 23:2 which provided an explanatory note that Kirjath-arba, the town where Rachel died is Hebron. The city of Kirjath-arba was not called Hebron until the time of the conquest when Joshua gave it to Caleb (Joshua 14:13-15).So Moses definitely didn"t write the Pentateuch; we don"t know who wrote the first five books of the Bible. Yet, Pro is willing to trust an anonymous source to tell him what God said to Moses, but doesn"t put the same level of faith in Paul, whom we do know, to tell us what Jesus revealed to him. This is an ironic double standard. What Jesus said while on earth cannot take president over what he revealed through Paul, anymore than it can take president over what he revealed through Moses or any other prophet! Why? Because what he reveals through them is no less true. Pro, doesn"t God have the right to change his law? If he hasn"t changed his law, then Paul was wrong when he wrote Ephesians 2:15 and Hebrews 7:12, 18, and all those Jews and Christians who believed him in all those churches across the Roman Empire were deceived, and so was the church of God deceived for the last 2000 years! I challenge Pro to show me where the church of God was that was keeping the law of Moses for the last 2000 years. If it didn't exist, then Yeshua's prophecy has failed. He promised the gates of hell would not overcome his church. (Matthew 16:18) If the church apostasized from the law God expected them to keep, and broke his law for 2000 years, then the gates of hell surely overpowered them. I also challenged Pro to tell us if he offers up animal sacrifice since he thinks the sacrificial law of Moses is still binding. He said "The sacrificial commandmentsapply ONLYto priests and are performed ONLY in the temple. It is not my place to perform these." But according to 1 Peter 2:9, ALL believers are priests, so yes, it does apply to you. Will you question the validity of Peter"s writings too? By the way, where is your temple? If this law was still binding, wouldn"t God make sure he had a temple for it? Yet, since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, no temple has yet been rebuilt. I said that in Matthew 19 Jesus was bringing back God"s original standard, and anyone reading this could see I was only talking about God"s original standard regarding divorce. Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses allow them to divorce their wives on account of their hard-heartedness, but from the beginning it wasn"t so. God said that a man should "cleave to his wife," and what "God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." (vss 3-9) So Jesus was overruling Moses" law which allowed them to write divorce certificates on various grounds. Jesus says "only" on the grounds of fornication does he allow divorce. Pro dragging in issues of diet and incest which I never claimed were the original standards Jesus meant, does not answer the fact that he did restore the original view toward divorce. Pro uses Deuteronomy 4:2 to show that we can"t discard the sabbath or we"d be adding to what God said; actually, we"d be taking away from what he said. We surely don"t have the right to take upon ourselves the right to abolish any law of God, but God himself, because he made the law, has the right to change it if he wishes, does he not? He is the one who promised he would cause the sabbath to cease. (Hosea 2:11) He is the one who say via the apostle Paul that the law has been changed, and let"s remember it was Jesus himself who came down from heaven and made Paul and apostle. Let"s remember that Jesus broke the sabbath. At Jeremiah 17:21-22, God himself said: "bear no burden on the sabbath day." Yet, Jesus commanded a man to walk with his bed. (John 5:8-11) "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had BROKEN THE SABBATH, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." John says that the Jews tried to kill him, and we believe him; he says Jesus claimed equality with God, and I can"t speak for Pro, but all Christians I know believe him. John 1:1-3, 10, 18 presents Jesus as God, and as the creator of the world. Colossians 1:15-19 and Hebrews 1:1-3, 8-12 presents the same view. Jesus claims the same honor that belongs to the Father. (5:23) So I have no doubt he is God. So if John was right about the Jews wanting to kill him, and he was right about his claim to divinity, then he was also reliable about him breaking the sabbath! So we can"t change the law on our own, but God can and has changed it, through his Son, and has revealed this change by his prophets and apostles. So why would Jesus quote a law that he has abolished? Because all of it wasn"t abolished at the same time, and the majority was still in effect while he walked the earth as a man. It was only at the cross that the majority, the bulk of the law of Moses came to an end. (Colossians 2:14-17) However, Matthew 4:4 is a principle. Even when the law of Moses is abolished, the laws we have to live by are still coming from God"s mouth; but as my opponent said, some laws apply to men, others to women, others to judges, farmers, etc, so not every single law under the Old or the New Covenant is for us to live by. Matthew 5:18 says that till heaven and earth pass, nothing will pass from the law TILL all is fulfilled. So Jesus isn"t saying the law won"t pass away, he is saying it won"t pass away TILL it is fulfilled, and fulfilling the law is what he says he came to do in verse 17. Matthew 1:25 tells us that Joseph did not know (have sex with) Mary TILL she gave birth to Jesus, which means he did know her sexually after Jesus was born. So if the law won"t pass away TILL it is fulfilled, then when Jesus fulfills it, it would pass away. As for "lawlessness," Matthew 7:21-23 is talking about breaking the new law we live by now, not the law of Moses. As for Mark 7:15, Jesus says "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him." The law of Moses says there are meats that can defile you, thus, a change is made in the law. There was absolutely nothing figurative here; it wasn"t something figurative that goes into the stomach in verse 19. Even the King James Version says "purging ALL MEATS," so isn"t pork a meat? My opponent says unclean animals are not considered food, but it was God who said to Noah "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you." (Genesis 9:3) It was God who told Peter to eat animals he thought was unclean, no doubt because he didn"t yet grasp the law was abolished. (Acts 10:9-15) God told Peter not to call these animals defiled. God has cleansed them. My opponent keeps saying Paul was right, I believe Paul. So please explain to us what was being abolished at Ephesians 2:15 and Hebrews 7:12, 18 if not the law! Are you afraid of these passages?