Is The Old Covenant Binding Upon the Church

First I would like to point out the my opponent has not, as of yet, addressed my accusation of the fallacy of his opening argument in claiming that I have said the New has replaced the Old. He should have instead made an argument for why the Mosaic Covenant is binding upon the Christian today rather than arguing against a falsely attributed position. With that said, let me remind my opponent that this final round is for defense of argument only, not for rebuttal so I will go on to state my defense of my statements without rebutting my opponent's overall argument. Quote #1 You made a claim that I added the word "until" to John 1:17. I would like to point out to the reader that I was not quoting the scripture directly but making a statement in relation to time. I admit that it may have been a misleading statement, but I was merely attempting to show that the Mosaic Law was at least until Jesus Christ. Let me make it clear, I have not claimed that the Law ended with Jesus Christ. Quote #2 Again, my utilization is of Luke 16:16 is not to say the Law ended with John the Baptist or Christ. In fact, I even stated in a following sentence, ". . .the Law did not end with either the birth or ministry of John the Baptist. . ." You mentioned that I left out Luke 16:17, but I assure you that this verse has nothing to do with whether or not the Law will remain binding upon God's people. Consider that the Levitical priesthood, temple worship, and animal sacrifices are no longer in place, yet these are apart of the Torah. Quote #3 Never did I say that the New Testament was completed, so I hope my opponent was not attempting to utilize another logical fallacy of false attribution. Quote #4 I would ask the reader to simply compare the substance of the Gospel of Romans-Philemon with that of Matthew-Acts 8. The disciples knew nothing of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ and His blood atonement for their justification, among other things, until Paul was given this Gospel after His conversion (http://graceambassadors.com...). Gospel means good news. There are of course different "good news" proclamations in the Bible. I have already explained what Israel's Gospel was and the Gospel of Grace preached by Paul in my opening argument under the subtitle "The Gospel of The Kingdom." Quote #5 You did not indicate that you disagreed with my statement. What you seem to fail to realize is that while all of scripture is indeed written for us, it is not all written to us. Why is not every Christian out attempting to build a massive ark (with the exception of Answers in Genesis of course)? Because we recognize that the command to build the ark was given to Noah. Reading the Bible dispensationally really means you are reading things in context. The context of Matthew-Acts 9 is the dispensation of the Law. I of course believe that we are in a new dispensation called Grace, so therefore we must be careful when applying scriptures from another dispensational context. Jesus, in Matthew 5:18-19, rebuked those who would break even the smallest commandment of the Torah. If you believe like my opponent does, then you would say that the verse applies to you. If you believe like I do, then you recognize that Jesus was speaking to Jews under the Law, but since a new dispensation has begun with Paul, we are no longer under that Mosaic Covenant (Galatians 1, Ephesians 3, Colossians 1, et al). Quote #6 Very simply, Abraham kept the law that was written on his heart. He of course had no idea of the Levitical priesthood, feast days, temple worship, etc. that was to come with the Mosaic Covenant. I believe this is self evident. Quote #7 Yes Jesus expounded the things concerning Himself like Daniel 9 and Isaiah 53, but this does not mean that they understood (Luke 18:34, et al). I challenge my opponent and the prospective reader to find one scripture which shows that the disciples understood justification by the blood of Christ and His imputed righteousness before Paul's conversion in Acts 9. Quote #8 Actually I did give scripture to back up my claim: Galatians 1 and Ephesians 3. See Galatians 2:2 and Ephesians 3:3, Paul was given special revelation of the Gospel of Grace. And for those who are skeptical of there being two Gospels: ". . . the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (Galatians 2:7). So far my opponent has hardly proven my "false doctrine based on my opinion." Rather my opponent has made unfounded claims as I am sure the reader will see. May I remind the reader that the comments section has no sway on this debate and should only be considered for further inquiry. I would like to thank my opponent for his time and I would like to encourage the reader to carefully examine what has been said so far by both myself and my opponent. God bless!