Ceremonial Law like circumcision -- vs moral law of TEN Comm with Sabbath for ALL

[BobRyan]

The TEN have "the first commandment with a promise" being "honor your father and mother" - according to Paul in Eph 6:1-2. And HE says it is still a valid unit of Law having that as its "first commandment" with a promise.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), Eph 6:1-2

And of course that Law "defines what sin IS" according to the Apostles "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 (still... even in the NT). The "moral law" defines what sin is.

So when contrasting ceremonial law with moral law that defines what sin is - Paul says this
1 Cor 7: "19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."

"The Commandments of God" include "the TEN" as Christ points out in Matt 19
if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said,
“You shall not commit murder; Ex 20
You shall not commit adultery; Ex 20
You shall not steal; Ex 20
You shall not bear false witness; Ex 20
19 Honor your father and mother; Ex 20
and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Lev 19:18

James 2 - he who breaks one of God's Commandments is guilty of all

Is 66:23 - Sabbath is to be kept for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth - by all mankind
"from one Sabbath to another shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

No wonder "every Sabbath" they are assembled for Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4 coming back Sabbath after Sabbath for "more gospel" preaching.

No wonder the Sabbath commandment is quoted from in Acts 4:24 and Rev 14:7


===============

By contrast Heb 10:4-11 says the ceremonial laws ended at the cross along with their sacrifices and offerings.

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”
8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

But at Paul points out in Romans 14 - keeping those ceremonial holy days is a matter of one's personal choice and freedom.

================

"The TEN" - include the Sabbath since Eden according to the Bible details in Ex 20:11, Gen 2:1-3, Mark 2:27 AND according to Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate in almost all Christian denominations as we saw here --

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm all TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians and do so in a way that is consistent with the interpretation of the Sabbath in Eden...

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

...

 

[BobRyan]

Most of the points listed in the OP are agreed to by the majority of Bible scholarship in almost all denomination -- as pointed out here Mar 2, 2021 #3

and here Mar 2, 2021 #4

I will put it another way --

1. From Adam to today - "there is only ONE Gospel" Gal 1:6-9
2. The NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 is that Gospel where the Law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers to include the TEN - is "written on the heart and mind" and forgiveness of sins is granted as well as adoption into the family of God.
3. So the NEW Covenant is the ONE Gospel under which all were saved OT or NT who were ever saved and that includes the pre-cross case of Moses and Elijah standing "in glory" with Christ before the Cross.
4. The OLD Covenant is basically "obey and live" as Gal 3 points out and it is THE covenant under which all mankind is lost - all under the condemnation of the law "for all have sinned" Rom 3:23. So then "ALL the WORLD" is lost under that "Agreement" that "covenant" as Rom 3:19-20 reminds us. So ALL need the Gospel.

As I stated before your argument requires you to find a text saying that the Commandments of God were deleted/set-aside/made-null/abolished under that Jer 31:31-34 NEW Covenant and no text says anything like that.

In addition the Old Covenant Law such as "do not take God's name in vain" is still condemning all mankind as sinners - just as the New Covenant Law (such as "Do not take God's name in vain") is written on the heart.

5. The LAW of God written on the heart includes the TEN where "honor your father and mother is the first commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:2

 

[Tolworth John]

Jesus said that the safety was made for man's benefit. To have a day of recreation, when there was a pause in the hard physical daily work and a chance to worship God in community.

You do not accept that the early church started and continued to worship on the day Jesus rose from the dead. That in keeping this as the sabeth the ten commandments are being kept.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus said that the safety was made for man's benefit. To have a day of recreation, when there was a pause in the hard physical daily work and a chance to worship God in community.

You do not accept that the early church started and continued to worship on the day Jesus rose from the dead. That in keeping this as the sabeth the ten commandments are being kept.

I like to test doctrinal positions by the Bible (sola scriptura test). So then you bring up the idea that the first century NT church had taken the Sabbath commandment and edited it from "the seventh day IS the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" to say something like "week day 1 is now the Sabbath of the LORD because Jesus rose from the dead on that day".

But no NT text says that they ever did such a thing.

Editing what the Bible calls "The Commandments of God" via the "tradition of man" is addressed very specifically by Christ in Mark 7:6-13 so it is not like this subject is never addressed by any NT writer.

 

[Tolworth John]

But no NT text says that they ever did such a thing.

This shows either your bias towards works or your ignorance for there are:-
Colossians 2:16+17 about not letting others judge you about festivals or Sabbath's!
Acts 280:7 meeting together on the first day of the week.
1cor 16:2 setting money aside on the first day of the week. Why the first day if not a meeting?
Rev 1:10 John on Patmos has a vission on the Lord's day.

The early church wanted as does today's church, to mark the day that Jesus rose upon as special.
They also wanted to be seen as different from Judaism as well as the practical matter that they were perscuted by the Jewish authorities, so Saturday was no longer the Sabbath for Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

I like to test doctrinal positions by the Bible (sola scriptura test). So then you bring up the idea that the first century NT church had taken the Sabbath commandment and edited it from "the seventh day IS the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" to say something like "week day 1 is now the Sabbath of the LORD because Jesus rose from the dead on that day".

But no NT text says that they ever did such a thing.

I am in favor of sola scriptura testing. I can see when something fails that easy test.

Editing what the Bible calls "The Commandments of God" via the "tradition of man" is addressed very specifically by Christ in Mark 7:6-13 so it is not like this subject is never addressed by any NT writer.

This shows either your bias towards works or your ignorance for there are:-
Colossians 2:16+17 about not letting others judge you

Not letting others judge you regarding what you eat or drink or the ceremonial annual Sabbaths (shadow Sabbaths) of Lev 23 - was also the case in Matt 7 before the cross "judge not that you be not judged". No change before or after the cross in that regard. But that did not mean the end of eating, or of drinking or of holy days.

Bible details matter in this case as in all cases.

"EVERY Sabbath" they met for "more" Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4 for both gentiles and Jews.

Bible details again.

Acts 28:7 Now in the neighboring parts of that place were lands belonging to the leading man of the island, named Publius, who welcomed us and entertained us warmly for three days.

No mention of week-day-1 worship services or week-day-1 called "the Lord's Day" or week-day-1 called "the Christian Sabbath" in Acts 28:7

Acts 280:7 meeting together on the first day of the week.

Ok you may want to work on that one a bit.

A one-time meeting as a farewell address for Paul prior to traveling all day on Sunday. (OR it is a Sunday afternoon-evening meeting that goes into Monday)

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

1cor 16:2 setting money aside on the first day of the week.

1. No weekly meeting mentioned for week-day-1 in 1 Cor 16:2 as happening on week-day-1.
2. No mention of week-day-1 called "the Lord's Day" in 1 Cor 16:2
3. No mention of week-day-1 called "the Christian Sabbath" in 1 Cor 16:2

Rev 1:10 John on Patmos has a vision on the Lord's day.

In the Bible the Lord's day is the Sabbath - Saturday.

Mark 2:28 "The Son of man is LORD of the SABBATH" -- there is no "The Son of Man is LORD of week-day-1" in the Bible.

Is 58:13 "the Sabbath the Holy Day of the Lord" - there is no "Week day 1 the Holy Day of the Lord" in the Bible

So I am pretty much stuck on the idea of sola-scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice.

The early church wanted as does today's church, to mark the day that Jesus rose upon as special.
They also wanted to be seen as different from Judaism as well as the practical matter that they were perscuted by the Jewish authorities, so Saturday was no longer the Sabbath for Christians.

How nice then if they had actually said what you just said -- so that we find that in the actual Bible because in that case the sola-scriptura based believers such as myself (that test all doctrine by what is actually in scripture) could take a quote like that coming right from scripture and see the case for it made "in scripture" rather than merely in extra biblical sources texts opinions etc.

 

[John 0406]

Yes, break one of God's laws you break them all. Which is why believers need a saviour from sin of course. Some appear not to understand what obeying the Ten Commandments entails. Romans chapter 7 is a good chapter to read concerning that, from verse 7 onwards it is all about coveting(apart from a couple of verses) What goes on, on the inside of man, the part no one else sees(but God)

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, break one of God's laws you break them all. Which is why believers need a saviour from sin of course.

Amen! And that is not license to "take God's name in vain".

In the NT "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
And "I write that you sin NOT" 1 John 2:1
And of course that Law of God is structured such that "the first Commandment with a promise" is the command "Honor your father and mother". Eph 6:1-2

 

[BobRyan]

Romans chapter 7 is a good chapter to read concerning that, from verse 7 onwards it is all about coveting(apart from a couple of verses) What goes on, on the inside of man, the part no one else sees(but God)

True - Rom 7 and Matt 5 go to the level of "thought sins" - a complete transformation is needed and the Gospel provides it - but we choose every day to follow the Gospel path or not.

 

[Cribstyl]

True - Rom 7 and Matt 5 go to the level of "thought sins" - a complete transformation is needed and the Gospel provides it - but we choose every day to follow the Gospel path or not.

Yes, break one of God's laws you break them all. Which is why believers need a saviour from sin of course. Some appear not to understand what obeying the Ten Commandments entails. Romans chapter 7 is a good chapter to read concerning that, from verse 7 onwards it is all about coveting(apart from a couple of verses) What goes on, on the inside of man, the part no one else sees(but God)

(Staff Edit) (7/3/2021)

Rom 7:1-7 cannot be edited from the conversation of what the gospel teaches.
What part of 'died to the law' and 'released from the law' don't you understand?
Why does your narrative avoid what Jesus send Paul to teach as doctrine?
Rom 7:4¶Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Rom 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[fn]

Claiming that Jesus is your example is a scam argument to mislead people from what the bible teaches.

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 7 is a great place to find that the Law of God is "Holy just and good" even in the NT and that it includes things like "do no covet".

Romans 7 is a great place to find that Christians like Paul choose to "serve the Law of God with their mind and heart".

Romans 7 is a great place to find in vs 1-7 that without the Gospel the Law of God can only condemn the lost.

 

[guevaraj]

Claiming that Jesus is your example is a scam argument to mislead people from what the bible teaches.

Brother, what does Jesus want? Does Jesus want us to continue in sin or does He want us to take advantage of His triumph over the law that condemned the sinner to death to grow out of our sins and finally obey the law? Jesus has changed our relationship to the law so that the law is a promise of what we will do than a past stain of sin being an obstacle for us to grow and rise up out of our sins, as Jesus shows us the way.

Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. (Hebrews 7:25-28 NIV)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[Soyeong]

The TEN have "the first commandment with a promise" being "honor your father and mother" - according to Paul in Eph 6:1-2. And HE says it is still a valid unit of Law having that as its "first commandment" with a promise.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), Eph 6:1-2

And of course that Law "defines what sin IS" according to the Apostles "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 (still... even in the NT). The "moral law" defines what sin is.

So when contrasting ceremonial law with moral law that defines what sin is - Paul says this
1 Cor 7: "19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."

"The Commandments of God" include "the TEN" as Christ points out in Matt 19
if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said,
“You shall not commit murder; Ex 20
You shall not commit adultery; Ex 20
You shall not steal; Ex 20
You shall not bear false witness; Ex 20
19 Honor your father and mother; Ex 20
and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Lev 19:18

James 2 - he who breaks one of God's Commandments is guilty of all

Is 66:23 - Sabbath is to be kept for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth - by all mankind
"from one Sabbath to another shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

No wonder "every Sabbath" they are assembled for Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4 coming back Sabbath after Sabbath for "more gospel" preaching.

No wonder the Sabbath commandment is quoted from in Acts 4:24 and Rev 14:7


===============

By contrast Heb 10:4-11 says the ceremonial laws ended at the cross along with their sacrifices and offerings.

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”
8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

To suggest that some of the 600+ laws in the OT are moral while others are not is to suggest that it can be moral to disobey God when it comes to the laws that are not moral laws, however, I do not see any reason to think that it can ever be moral to disobey God and I do not see any standard by which we can use to determine which of those laws are not moral laws. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws.

The view of which of the 600+ laws fits into which of the subcategories of moral, civil, and ceremonial law varies widely depending on whom I ask, such as with some people considering just the Ten Commandments to be God's moral laws, while others consider the greatest two commandments to also be moral laws, or include other laws against such as against rape and kidnapping, so in order for someone to speak about those subcategories in way that derives their view from the Bible rather than inserts their view into the Bible, they would need to show where the Bible specifies which of those categories each of God's 600+ laws belong to, however, the Bible doesn't not even refer to any of those subcategories. If I wanted, I could categorize God's 600+ laws based on which parts of the body are most commonly used to obey/disobey them, such as with the law against theft being considered to be a hand law, however, if I were to create my own doctrine out of my subcategories without establishing that any of the authors of the Bible categorized those laws in the same manner, such as by deciding that the laws I personally consider to be hand laws are no longer valid, then I would quickly run into the same sort of error as those who are deciding that the laws that they personally consider to be ceremonial and civil laws are no longer valid. If a law is no longer valid, then it is no longer profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness, which is contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

But at Paul points out in Romans 14 - keeping those ceremonial holy days is a matter of one's personal choice and freedom.

In Romans 14, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be mistaken as speaking against obeying God as if Paul had the authority to countermand God. When God has given no command, then we are free to have our own opinions, but where God has given a command, human opinion must yield. So for example, God gave no command to fast twice a week, but in the 1st century it had become a common practice to esteem certain days for fasting, and those who were doing that were passing judgement on those who did not (Luke 18:12), so it was exactly this sort of judging each other over disputable matters of opinion that Paul was addressing in this chapter. However, God has commanded His followers to observe His holy days, so whether someone does that is not a disputable matter of opinion, but a matter of obedience to God. God is sovereign so we are obligated to obey Him, and our obedience to Him is not a matter of personal choice and freedom, but whether you fast twice a week is a matter of person choice and freedom.

 

[Soyeong]

This shows either your bias towards works or your ignorance for there are:-
Colossians 2:16+17 about not letting others judge you about festivals or Sabbath's!
Acts 280:7 meeting together on the first day of the week.
1cor 16:2 setting money aside on the first day of the week. Why the first day if not a meeting?
Rev 1:10 John on Patmos has a vission on the Lord's day.

The early church wanted as does today's church, to mark the day that Jesus rose upon as special.
They also wanted to be seen as different from Judaism as well as the practical matter that they were perscuted by the Jewish authorities, so Saturday was no longer the Sabbath for Christians.

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging them as teaching human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, so they were being judged by pagans. This means that the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in obedience to His commands in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow and Paul was encouraging them not to let any man judge them and keep them from obeying God.

In Acts 20:7, it is important to keep in mind that for Jews the day started at sundown, so a meeting on the first day of the week would have began on what we would refer to as Saturday at sundown. Jews have a longstanding tradition of meeting on the first day of the week for a Havdalah service on Saturday at sundown to mark the closing of the Sabbath and to welcome in the work week. Jews also traditionally didn't handle money on the Sabbath, so this was also a time when they would collect offerings. So Paul spoke from evening until midnight, not from morning until midnight, and then left on Sunday morning to travel. This does not establish that they met on Sunday morning, and even if they had, it wouldn't establish that this was the start of a new tradition, and even if it was, it wouldn't establish that they hypocritically set aside God's command to keep the Sabbath in order to establish their own tradition, and even if they had, it wouldn't establish that we should follow in their example of sin.

In Matthew 7:6-9, Jesus criticize the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own tradition, so people are falling under the same criticism by setting aside God's command to keep the 7th day holy in order to establish their own tradition of worshiping on Sunday. There is nothing about the day on which Jesus happened to rise that means that we should hypocritically set aside God's commands against idolatry, adultery, murder, theft, breaking the Sabbath, or any of God's others commandments. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so returning to the lawlessness that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from is the opposite of honoring the resurrection. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with starting a tradition of honoring the resurrection on Sunday, but it should be in addition to obeying God's other commandments, not in place of them. Jesus rose on the Feast of Firstfruits as the firstfuits from the dead, so there is already a day that is rich with relevant symbolism that is in accordance with what God has commanded that we can use to honor the resurrection, so there is absolutely no need whatsoever to set aside any of God's commands in order to do that.

The day of the Lord has a specific meaning in Jewish eschatology, which was referring to the day that he was seeing in his vision, not to the day of the week that he happened to have his vision.

 

[Soyeong]

Yes, break one of God's laws you break them all. Which is why believers need a saviour from sin of course. Some appear not to understand what obeying the Ten Commandments entails. Romans chapter 7 is a good chapter to read concerning that, from verse 7 onwards it is all about coveting(apart from a couple of verses) What goes on, on the inside of man, the part no one else sees(but God)

If someone breaks any law and become a lawbreaker, then they need to repent and to return to obedience to God's law through faith, which is precisely what James 2 was encouraging them to do. In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, and which he served with his flesh, so he was speaking about both of those laws throughout that chapter, and it is important not to mistaken the things that he said about the law of sin as being about the Law of God.

 

[Soyeong]

You guys wouldn't recognize the gospel path if it bit you in the asterisk.

Rom 7:1-7 cannot be edited from the conversation of what the gospel teaches.
What part of 'died to the law' and 'released from the law' don't you understand?
Why does you narrative avoid what Jesus send Paul to teach as doctrine?
Rom 7:4¶Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Rom 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[fn]

Claiming that Jesus is your example is a scam argument to mislead people from what the bible teaches.

In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which he served with his flesh. If Romans 7:4-6 were speaking about the Law of God, then that would mean that Paul was speaking against obeying a law that he delighted in obeying, that the way to become unified with Christ is by rejecting God's laws for how to be unified with him, that the way to bear fruit for God is by rejecting God's laws for how to bear fruit for Him, that Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, and that Paul delighted in being held captive, all of which is absurd, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holing him captive.

 

[Cribstyl]

Romans 7 is a great place to find that the Law of God is "Holy just and good" even in the NT and that it includes things like "do no covet".

Yeah, my bicycle is dependable and good but I drive the car now.
Yes, the law is Holy, just, good and perfect, but if scripture say we're not under the law, we're not under the law.
You cherry pick points about the law, and ignore the solid teaching that we're not subjected to it.
Consider this, the law says thou shall not steal.... The Gospel teaches love, so stealing is not an option for believers.
By the law you should die for stealing. Forgiveness of sins is actually a contradiction to the law.
If you're led by the Spirit of God you will be led to make righteous judgment.

Romans 7 is a great place to find that Christians like Paul choose to "serve the Law of God with their mind and heart".

Romans 7 is a great place to find in vs 1-7 that without the Gospel the Law of God can only condemn the lost.

Cherry picking again.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Romans 7 is a great place to find that the Law of God is "Holy just and good" even in the NT and that it includes things like "do no covet".

Yeah, my bicycle is dependable and good but I drive the car now.

Rom 3:31 "31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law."

"Establish" does not mean "abolish" or "obsolete" - as it turns out.

Under the New Covenant Jer 31:31-34 the "Law" is written on the heart.

So even in the NT "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the commandments of God"

Yes, the law is Holy, just, good and perfect,

I am glad we can agree on something.

 

[BobRyan]

To suggest that some of the 600+ laws in the OT are moral while others are not is to suggest that it can be moral to disobey God when it comes to the laws that are not moral laws, .

In addition to moral laws that define what sin is -- some are civil and some are ceremonial (for example) and in Heb 10:4-11 we see that regarding animal sacrifices and offering "he takes away the first to establish the second". So it it no a matter of rebellion to not sacrifice animals as a part of our liturgy after the cross.

And since the civil laws of the theocracy end when the theocracy ends - it is also not "rebellion" against God to not have the death penalty for Sabbath violation.

 

[Cribstyl]

Rom 3:31 "31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law."

"Establish" does not mean "abolish" or "obsolete" - as it turns out.

Isolating Rom 3:31 from it's context (Rom3:21-31) is a scam that exposes deception.
Why? New Covenant doctrines are not isolated soundbites. All Christian doctrines are taught by line upon line by Paul.

You're ignoring that Paul is teaching in Rom 3
(v21)"From now on, Righteousness by faith is righteousness without the law. "
(22) This is the righteousness of God for all believers
(27) What? how can we claim to be righteous? without keeping a law? Our claim will be "faith in Jesus" and not by keeping the law.
(28) So we conclude that justification from sins will be by the law of faith and not by keeping the law.
(30) Both circumcision and uncircumcision will be justified by faith
(31) Wow, wont we destroy the law if justification is by faith? Not at all, living by faith establishes God intent for the law.

Rom 3:21¶But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27¶Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Rom 3:29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Rom 3:31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Isolating Rom3:31 exposes desperation to ignore the the gospel taught in Rom3

Under the New Covenant Jer 31:31-34 the "Law" is written on the heart.

Must be joking, What part of "New Covenant" or " not according to the one made with the fathers"...means the same old covenant will be written on the heart? The bible is not that confusing and God is not a liar.
Jer 31:31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake

Rom 3:21 References the correct understanding of Jer 31:31-34 by saying: Righteousness without the law was prophesied by Moses and the prophets
Rom 3:21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

So even in the NT "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the commandments of God"

I am glad we can agree on something.

What is Paul calling the commandments of God to the Corithians? 1 Cor 7:19 is referencing Paul's counsel from God, beginning with 1Cor 7:1. They had wrote to Paul about these questions.

Rev 14:12 is not talking about the ten, "faith in Jesus" hints what commandments needs to be kept.
Anyone can see that you're highjacking words that appear to make your argument, but 100% of the time you're misleading people to believe contradictions.