Here's what I posted in reply:
You see, non-Christians are adept at mentioning Jesus, but none of these groups are Christian. Your posts illustrate the core tenets of Judaism in denial of Christ's redemption. While mentioning Jesus, you have shown that you aren't aware of what He did at the cross.
Hebrews 9
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant in the present tense.
Not the old covenant that you keep bringing to the forum.
Jesus Mediates Christianity.
Not Judaism, as Adventism's membership purport they still transgress with no solution.
The problem is that you maintain that the new replaces the Ten Commandments. Scripture never said so. Jer. 31:
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
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, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord,
I will put my law in their inward parts,
and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
NO where in this text it says that the law would be removed or changed. No where does it say that the problem was God's Holy sanctified law but it clearly states that it was the people who broke the covenant.
Hebrews 8:
7
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;
I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Why was there a need for a new covenant? Finding fault with them/ they continued not in My covenant. God even compared it like a marriage, (Hosea among other passages). There is a covenant in a marriage, if one party commits adultery that covenant is broken. Does that mean the law relating to marriage is done with? That is your argument. God does not say the law is new/removed/changed.
The law moved from stone to flesh. From hardness, reluctance on our part to compliance. That is what the scripture says.
God says I will write my law not remove it.