Under Law

[Ron Amnsn]

19 hours ago, JoeMo said:

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,  so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:14-17)

What scripture was Paul talking about?  The Old Testament!  The New Testament didn't exist yet.  The Old Testament was the standard used by the early church.

Yes.  This is a vital part of the context of the New Testament that is often overlooked.

The New Testament was not written for people like today's Christians.  The New Testament was written to people who already knew and loved the Old Testament and accepted it as God's Word -- the standard of truth by which to shape one's life; people who also knew the daily challenges of living for God in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.  No Christians today have that background in place before trying to understand the New Testament writings and before being taught the traditional [mis]interpretations handed down from theologians who also lacked the foundational background that had been common among the original readers of the New Testament.

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, phkrause said:

Also lets not forget that when Joseph was tempted by Potiphar's wife he knew what Adultery was!! Yet as was mentioned by Gustave, the 10 Commandments were not even spoken of!! Obviously they were!!

Even the pagan kings that Abraham interacted with knew that taking Sarah from Abraham was wrong, even if they had been told she was his sister.

There is also evidence within Genesis that people were already aware of some of God's other instructions that were later given to Moses to write down in the Law of Moses.

Some examples:

• Cain was apparently already aware that all of Abel's relatives had a responsibility to avenge the death of Abel -- "and whoever finds me will kill me." (Genesis 4:14)
• Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals.
• The concept of priesthood was already in place - "now he was a priest of God Most High." (Genesis 14:18)
• The concept of tithing to a priest was already in place - "And Abram gave him a tenth of everything."(Genesis 14:20)
• The concept of levirate marriage was already understood and enforced by God himself - "And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also." (Genesis 38:10)

These provisions from the Law of Moses were already known long before we have an explicit record that God gave these instructions to humans.  We presently don't have any way of knowing what other parts of the Law of Moses had already been made known to Adam and his descendants.

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Or could the difference be the motivation for circumcision?  In Galatians, they were being circumcised because the Judaizers convinced them that circumcision was required for salvation.  Maybe Timothy asked to be circumcised so he could "fit in" better when he accompanied Paul and/or preached in synagogues.

Yes!

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

people who also knew the daily challenges of living for God in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.  No Christians today have that background in place before trying to understand the New Testament writings and before being taught the traditional [mis]interpretations handed down from theologians who also lacked the foundational background that had been common among the original readers of the New Testament.

Exactly.  We modern educated western Christians look at the New Testament with our modern educated western minds instead of trying to see it from the perspective of first century Christians living in an environment which we can barely understand much less relate to.  I find it useful to at least attempt to look at things the way someone living 2,000 might see them.  I know it's just a fantasy flight of imagination, but trying to see things in a more primitive (not meaning simple or stupid) way helps me understand better.

[8thdaypriest]

15 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Exactly.  We modern educated western Christians look at the New Testament with our modern educated western minds instead of trying to see it from the perspective of first century Christians living in an environment which we can barely understand much less relate to.  I find it useful to at least attempt to look at things the way someone living 2,000 might see them.  I know it's just a fantasy flight of imagination, but trying to see things in a more primitive (not meaning simple or stupid) way helps me understand better.

The Jews that Paul preached to, telling them that Messiah had come, and that He had fulfilled the prophecies written of Him -

those Jews would have said, "To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them" (Isa 8:20). 

Did "the Law and the Testimony" mean there could be no "New Covenant" ?   No!   The Jews were expecting that God would make a New Covenant with a renewed Israel.   The New Covenant had been promised (Jer 31:33,  Jer 32:40, Deut 30:6,  Ezek 11:19, Ezek Cpt 36).  

Some Jews said, "No.  This can't be Messiah, because he has not "restored the Kingdom to Israel".  

Others believed and said, "But He will.  His resurrection from the dead, the prophecies fulfilled, and all the subsequent miracles are proof enough for us." 

And going one step further,  is it fair to say that Christ had the authority to "change" the means of reconciliation (atonement) - from animal blood to "the blood of Christ",  from "the [Aaronic] priest shall make atonement for you", to  Jesus Christ has made atonement for you (Romans 5:11).    

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/19/2019 at 10:10 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

  On 9/19/2019 at 9:39 PM, Gustave said:

How do I know? 

Because Scripture says; "moreover I gave THEM my Sabbaths". 

Scripture identifies "them" as the "Children of" Israel. 

 Ezekiel 20:5 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up mine hand unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt, when I lifted up mine hand unto them, saying, I am the LORD your God; (KJV)

God made Himself "known to them" (the Children of Israel).  

Does that mean HE did not exist, because Israel did not "know" about Him? 

I don't think we can assume that God's Sabbath did not exist, because Israel didn't know about it. 

HE called them "My Sabbaths" (13 times), not ever "Israel's Sabbaths".

"Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you." (Exo 31:13 KJV)

HIS Sabbaths are still "a sign" between the LORD and the people He is sanctifying. 

He called them "My sabbaths" just like He called them "My commandments" and "My laws" and "My covenant".

  Psalm 89:34 "I shall not violate my covenant, I shall not withdraw the word once spoken."

 Isaiah 56:4 "For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;" (KJV)

We cannot "take hold of" His covenant, without keeping His Sabbaths.  The Covenant that He wrote on the stones, He will write on our hearts.  Their hearts were hard like the stones.  He will first give us "new hearts" and then he will write His Law on our new hearts.

IF He had "changed" the Sabbath,  at the heart of the Covenant He wrote in stone, I think there would be some specific mention of it.  There is none.  The only thing specifically "changed", is "the priesthood". 

[Gregory Matthews]

I am likely to limit my time on the Internet.

I broke my left hand today.  I expect that it will require surgery.  

[JoeMo]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

is it fair to say that Christ had the authority to "change" the means of reconciliation (atonement) - from animal blood to "the blood of Christ",  from "the [Aaronic] priest shall make atonement for you", to  Jesus Christ has made atonement for you (Romans 5:11).    

IMHO, yes.  All authority was given to Christ.

"After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.  Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:1-3)

[Gustave]

On 9/20/2019 at 11:25 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Are you equating "moral" with "natural" ?   Cause I don't think those two things are the same.   Man's nature is carnal, therefore immoral.  Man will "naturally" do what he can get away with, UNLESS indwelt by the Spirit of God.   The indwelling is stronger than our carnal nature, which allows us to live "morally".  

Why does it matter exactly WHEN the LORD reminded human beings (a few of them) about His special rest day?  If the LORD declared the 7th Day "holy" - set apart for the LORD, at creation - the day after creating Adam and Eve,  I would assume He told Adam about it.  Where did Moses get the creation account that he wrote down?  I think there's a verse that says Moses consulted other sources.  If human beings then forgot a whopping lot of the LORD's work, I think the LORD would reintroduce it slowly, first calling Abraham and establishing a relationship with him, then going on to Jacob, finally to the rescue of Israel from Egypt, then the revelation of his "Law".  And even that was not a FULL revelation.    

The first human beings were offering animal "sacrifices".  Right?   When Cain brought plants, the LORD rejected his offering.  I think it can be assumed that Adam had some instruction about this, and had passed that instruction on to Cain and Abel.  Job offered sacrifices for his children, in case they had sinned.  Job lived about he same time as Abraham, perhaps earlier.   How did Job know what was sin and what wasn't, and what to offer as "burnt offerings" ?   Because the Bible does not specifically say "Shem instructed Job, doesn't mean he didn't.  Their actions say they were "instructed" by someone. 

 

 

Yes, when I say "Moral" or  "Natural" Law I'm referring to the same thing. Man's nature. We would understand human nature differently likely due to a difference in how we understand Original Sin. This short video may help explain my position in a simple way.  What you just said above 

Quote

"Man will "naturally" do what he can get away with, UNLESS indwelt by the spirit of God. The indwelling is stronger than our carnal nature, which allows us to live morally". 

There are things written on every persons heart regardless of what their religious instruction level has been - Listening to this little voice IS listening to or ignoring the Holy Spirit. So, what I quoted you as saying above may indicate that we are closer to agreement than we realize? 

God imparted to the Children of Israel ONE OF THE REASON'S He informed them of His Sabbath - the point is that God had to inform them about the Sabbath otherwise they would have been ignorant about it (just like circumcision). God said that the Sabbath was to be a sign between Him & Israel and that precludes the Sabbath from being observed prior to that. It wouldn't be much of a sign if people outside the direct outgrowth of Abraham observed it - would it.

The level of devotion to the Sabbath as found in SDA's or folks that spun off the SDA's is significant enough that IF people prior to Moses observed it - there would be historical or Biblical mention of the practice instead of nothing. Years ago I visited a SDA church and realized that the word "Sabbath" was said literally thousands of times, probably before they even started their Liturgy. You walk in and someone says"HAPPY SABBATH" and they look perplexed when you don't repeat the phrase immediately back to them  (as was in my case). It was sort of like it was Christmas and everyone you run into says "Merry Christmas" and of course you say it right back to them. In the case of the Church I visited EVERYONE said "Happy Sabbath to everyone" and got the same words repeated back to them over and over and over. This happens literally  seconds after you walk into the Church, they do it at the small meetings before the main service and at the service. The Pastor said this to the people in the Church prior to starting his homily as well. It's possible SDA's don't notice it but seriously, take a hand counter like used in sports and click it every time you hear the word sabbath before the homily is said and I will bet the number of clicks will be staggering. 

This level of devotion to the Sabbath  simply isn't in the record. 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

On 9/20/2019 at 7:41 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

A.  The Bible doesn't use the term "Trinity" nor does it emphasize the "three-ness" of God.  I believe everything the Bible actually says about the nature of God, and I believe that everything Jesus claimed about himself and his relationship to God.  I believe about the Spirit of God the same as the people who wrote the Old Testament and the New Testament, which is somewhat different than the way people explain the Spirit of God today.

B.   I believe that it is possible for any man, including the apostle Paul, to teach things that are contrary to Scripture.  So everything must be tested by previously existing Scripture to see whether it is true. In Acts 17:10 the Bereans were commended for testing the teachings of Paul using the Old Testament scrolls found in the Jewish synagogue to see whether Paul's teachings agreed with the Old Testament.  The Bereans found that Paul's teachings were in agreement with the previously existing Scripture of his day, just as Paul himself claimed about his own teachings.  I agree with the conclusion of the Bereans that Paul's teachings are all valid because, when his writings are correctly interpreted in context, Paul's teachings do agree with the Old Testament. 

However, many people misinterpret Paul's writings, ignoring much of the context.  It is common to hear people claim that Paul wrote things that contradict and overthrow previous Scripture.  Those misinterpretations of Paul's writings are very popular in Christianity even though it is obvious that those teachings would never have passed the same test that the real teachings of Paul passed -- the test the Bereans used -- searching the Scriptures daily to see whether Paul's teachings were compatible with previous Scripture.

Christians today tend to do the opposite of what the Bereans did.  The Bereans used the Old Testament as the standard of truth to determine whether Paul's teachings were true, but Christians today use their own out-of-context interpretations of Paul's writings as the standard of truth to determine whether any of the Old Testament scrolls are still true.

If the apostle Paul had actually been teaching things that are contrary to the Old Testament, as many people today claim he did, then Paul would definitely be a false teacher.  I don't believe that is the case.

Do you believe that Jesus is God Almighty in the same way that "The Father & The Holy Spirit" is God Almighty? 

Do you consider the Old Testament to be "Scripture" in a different way than you believe the New Testament to be Scripture? 

The Bereans were ONLY using the Old Testament to see if it was possible that Jesus could have been the Christ.  the Bereans were said to be noble because they were willing to search the Scriptures to see if it were possible what Paul was saying was true. 

Could you point out what common things you've heard Christians say that would indicate they believe Paul wrote that contradicted other Scriptures? 

 

On 9/21/2019 at 4:30 PM, phkrause said:

Also lets not forget that when Joseph was tempted by Potiphar's wife he knew what Adultery was!! Yet as was mentioned by Gustave, the 10 Commandments were not even spoken of!! Obviously they were!!

Are you familiar with Greek writer Homer and what he attributed the cause of the Battle of Troy? What does this do to your logic chain? 

[Gustave]

On 9/20/2019 at 8:49 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

That's a popular teaching about the Bible.  However, it is not a teaching that is actually found in the Bible.

If you look at everything that the New Testament says about circumcision, you realize that there must have been at least two types of circumcision that were talked about.  In Galatians 5:2 the apostle Paul says, "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing."  That sounds pretty bad.  But in Acts 16:3 we are told that Paul himself circumcised Timothy.  Did Paul intentionally put Timothy into the situation where Christ would profit Timothy nothing?  No, because we later hear many good things about Timothy and his relationship to Christ.  Evidently Paul was talking to the Galatians about a kind of circumcision that was different than what Paul himself did to Timothy.

If you look at all the New Testament verses where Paul seems to be speaking against circumcision, none of those verses address the circumcision of 8-day-old male Jewish (or Gentile) babies.  All of those verses address situations where the males are old enough to chose whether or not they will be circumcised.  Jewish babies have never made that choice for themselves. 

Some people try to use Acts 21:21 to say that Paul was teaching against circumcising children, but if you read the whole passage you find that in verse 21 it is James talking, and James is reporting to Paul a false rumor about Paul that had been told to the Jews in Jerusalem.  James then proposes a plan that will prove the rumor is false, and Paul carries out that plan to show that the rumor is false.  It's so ironic when modern Christians who claim to be following the teachings of Paul repeat the same accusations against Paul that Paul's enemies made against Paul while he was alive.

This is no different than Paul's other teachings on what can cause another to stumble. As a Christian you can eat your fill of pork or whatever else is put before you HOWEVER you wouldn't want your diet to be a stumbling block to someone else so be mindful of that. This Scripture isn't speaking of a different type of circumcision - it's just that Timothy had a Greek Father and Jewish Mother - you draw more bees with honey and this in itself is reasonable enough to use as a reason you read what you do in Acts 16,3. 

Circumcision doesn't save us or add any extra credit with God in the same way that eating or not eating certain food does not add any extra credit with God. If an individual wants to be circumcised or not eat sausage they are at Christian Liberty to do so. In the case of Timothy its reasonable that Timothy would be more acceptable to Jews in his presentation of the Gospel "as a Jew" than as a Gentile which he would have been considered without being circumcised. 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Do you consider the Old Testament to be "Scripture" in a different way than you believe the New Testament to be Scripture? 

The oldest books of Scripture carry the most authority because the writings and teachings of every prophet or author (or potential messiah) that came later had to be tested by what God had revealed previously to see if the newer teachings and writings are true. 

The first lesson in the Bible after creation shows how Eve failed to use the older instructions that God had given as a standard by which to test the compelling newer teachings that the amazing talking serpent gave her.  As a result Eve was deceived and we all have been affected by the consequences.  Over and over throughout the Bible that same lesson is taught through stories and direct instruction from God -- that new teachings and new prophets and potential messiahs must be tested by older revelation to see whether the new message is true, even if the newer message is accompanied by signs and miracles. (see Deuteronomy 13)

I believe that the New Testament is the same as the Old Testament, because our interpretation of every Book of the Bible has to be tested by all the older revelation of God that preceded it.   But because the New Testament is newer, it has to pass more tests because there is more older revelation available by which to test the authors, the writings, the interpretation, and the application of the teachings of the New Testament.  If we fail to do that we would be ignoring the foundational lessons taught in Scripture, and we would be asking to be deceived just as Eve was.  How many times does God tell us that he doesn't change?

 

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The oldest books of Scripture carry the most authority because the writings and teachings of every prophet or author (or potential messiah) that came later had to be tested by what God had revealed previously to see if the newer teachings and writings are true. 

The first lesson in the Bible after creation shows how Eve failed to use the older instructions that God had given as a standard by which to test the compelling newer teachings that the amazing talking serpent gave her.  As a result Eve was deceived and we all have been affected by the consequences.  Over and over throughout the Bible that same lesson is taught through stories and direct instruction from God -- that new teachings and new prophets and potential messiahs must be tested by older revelation to see whether the new message is true, even if the newer message is accompanied by signs and miracles. (see Deuteronomy 13)

I believe that the New Testament is the same as the Old Testament, because our interpretation of every Book of the Bible has to be tested by all the older revelation of God that preceded it.   But because the New Testament is newer, it has to pass more tests because there is more older revelation available by which to test the authors, the writings, the interpretation, and the application of the teachings of the New Testament.  If we fail to do that we would be ignoring the foundational lessons taught in Scripture, and we would be asking to be deceived just as Eve was.  How many times does God tell us that he doesn't change?

 

This is the direct opposite of how I understand it works - I'll be back soon with some ideas and questions for you about this. 

[Gustave]

15 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I am likely to limit my time on the Internet.

I broke my left hand today.  I expect that it will require surgery.  

OUCH!!! Get well soon Gregory! 

[Ron Amnsn]

31 minutes ago, Gustave said:

This is the direct opposite of how I understand it works - I'll be back soon with some ideas and questions for you about this. 

Yes, we live in a "newer-first" culture where each new thing supersedes that which is older.  That makes it very challenging for us to accept the message of the Bible, which is an "older-first" document written within an "older-first" society where the age-old foundations of Scripture were still relied on for determining what was truth and what was not.

[JoeMo]

17 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I am likely to limit my time on the Internet.

I broke my left hand today.  I expect that it will require surgery.  

Bummer Gregory!  I hope you heal well and soon.  Will be praying for you.

[JoeMo]

46 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Yes, we live in a "newer-first" culture where each new thing supersedes that which is older.  That makes it very challenging for us to accept the message of the Bible, which is an "older-first" document written within an "older-first" society where the age-old foundations of Scripture were still relied on for determining what was truth and what was not.

This statement might be true in a general sense; however, just because something is a new idea doesn't mean it's wrong.  I believe that in these last days, truths will be opened to us that no one has considered previously. Some of those things may contradict our presently held interpretations of scripture; but that doesn't mean they're wrong.  New ideas should be tested against what scripture actually says rather than how we have interpreted it.  If a new idea does not contradict what the Bible actually says rather than what we think it says or what we "want" it to say, it should be put on the table for additional scrutiny.

[8thdaypriest]

46 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

  17 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I am likely to limit my time on the Internet.

I broke my left hand today.  I expect that it will require surgery.  

Oh Gregory.  Sooooooo sorry this happened. 

Heal quickly!  Many prayers. 

I am going on Wednesday to have PRP stem cell injections around my big toe joint.  I think it will speed healing.

Just an idea.  Insurance doesn't cover it though. 

[Ron Amnsn]

51 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

This statement might be true in a general sense; however, just because something is a new idea doesn't mean it's wrong.  I believe that in these last days, truths will be opened to us that no one has considered previously. Some of those things may contradict our presently held interpretations of scripture; but that doesn't mean they're wrong.  New ideas should be tested against what scripture actually says rather than how we have interpreted it.  If a new idea does not contradict what the Bible actually says rather than what we think it says or what we "want" it to say, it should be put on the table for additional scrutiny.

Absolutely.  When someone presents me with a new idea or paradigm, I don't consider that I've done it justice until I have read through the whole Bible watching to see how the new idea aligns with each passage that bears on the topic.

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

He called them "My sabbaths"

Say I invited you and everyone else to MY birthday party.  It's the anniversary of MY birthday.  Always will be, whether or not you decide to honor that day with me.  Right? 

In the same way, it's the LORD's Sabbath.  Because some decline to honor His Day, does not make it no longer His Sabbath.  Jesus is STILL "Lord of the Sabbath".   When He appeared to John on "the Lord's Day",  it was still His special Day. 

Revelation 1:10  "On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet" (NIV).

I wonder where John got the idea to call it "the Lord's Day".  Where?  From the LORD.  He called that day, "My Sabbath". 

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/21/2019 at 8:48 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

  On 9/20/2019 at 11:13 PM, JoeMo said:

Or could the difference be the motivation for circumcision?  In Galatians, they were being circumcised because the Judaizers convinced them that circumcision was required for salvation.  Maybe Timothy asked to be circumcised so he could "fit in" better when he accompanied Paul and/or preached in synagogues.

Or maybe Paul advised Timothy to be circumcised, in order to avoid confrontations with conservative Jews, who would resist anything Timothy might say, on the basis of his uncircumcision.

[8thdaypriest]

Folks have told me that they are "New Covenant Christians", so they don't have to keep all those OT - Old Covenant, laws. 

Usually, they cannot tell me what the New Covenant says - the terms of the New Covenant. 

And they cannot tell me who the New Covenant is made with - who are the parties to that New Covenant.

The New Covenant is made between the LORD and Israel. 

If one is not "grafted in" to Israel, then he/she cannot partake of that Covenant.   There is no passage that says the LORD will make (or has made) a new covenant with all humanity.  There are not two different new covenants - one with Israel, and one with "the Church".  There's only one "New Covenant" and the LORD has made that one with Israel.  

The terms of that New Covenant are simple:  Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, and "I will write My Law on your heart". 

And where do we find His Law?   It was written on the stones. 

[Ron Amnsn]

3 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

In the same way, it's the LORD's Sabbath.  Because some decline to honor His Day, does not make it no longer His Sabbath.  Jesus is STILL "Lord of the Sabbath".   When He appeared to John on "the Lord's Day",  it was still His special Day. 

You've been making good points, Rachel.
When Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man", (Mark 2:27) he made it clear that the Sabbath was made for Adam and all of Adam's descendants.  If Jesus was speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic, the word he would have used for mankind is the same as the name of the man Adam because that name is used to refer to all of Adam's descendants in the same way that we use the name of the man "Israel" to refer to all the descendants of the man Israel.  If Jesus was speaking in Greek the statement still indicates that the Sabbath was intended for all mankind, not just the Israelites.

[Ron Amnsn]

20 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Or maybe Paul advised Timothy to be circumcised, in order to avoid confrontations with conservative Jews, who would resist anything Timothy might say, on the basis of his uncircumcision.

How would that motivation be different than the motivation of the Gentile believers in Galatia who wanted to fit in to that congregation but were so emphatically counseled to not be "circumcised"?   It seems that in Galatia there was more than just the factor of wanting to avoid confrontation or wanting to fit in.

[8thdaypriest]

He called them "My people" to Pharaoh.  "Let My people go."  And He will call them "My people Israel" forever.

Matthew 2:6  "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." (KJV)

[This is Paul talking about the Gentiles]  Romans 9:25 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," (NIV)

"For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people" (2Co 6:16).

Non-Hebrews are "grafted in" to Israel, by belonging to Christ.  "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (covenant). Gal. 3:29

Revelation 18:4 "Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "'Come out of her, my people,' so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;" 

If you can deceive believers into thinking there are two different peoples of God, then you can deceive them into thinking there are two different sets of laws,  a covenant for each.   The "old" one - given to "Israel" does not apply to Christians.  Christians are partakers of a newer covenant that does not include the Sabbath.   That's wrong.  The LORD through Isaiah puts His Sabbath right there, in the New Earth (Isa 66:22-23). 

You also deceive them into thinking the prophecies that speak of "Israel" and a "return to the land" only involve people of a certain blood line, (over there) in the Middle East.  

There's only one New Covenant - and it's made with Israel.   The "first covenant" was rendered "obsolete" because the "people" broke it, and the husband of that marriage covenant died.  There had to be a "New Covenant" (of marriage) for Messiah to marry Jerusalem (the capital of Israel).   The only thing I see specifically "changed" between the "first" and the "new" - is "the priesthood".   It has been "changed" back to the original - "the firstborn".  

That's a long way from changing anything in The Ten.

Of course the Sabbath was/is "a sign" between the LORD and "Israel".   His people are His redeemed.  His people will honor His Day.