Sunday Worship?

What is holy to God should not be profaned by man, so we would still be obligated to keep the 7th day holy even if God had never commanded anyone to do that.

Either Paul only spoke against incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised in Acts 16:3 and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason, which should not be mistaken as ruling against requiring circumcision for the purposes for which God commanded it. The Jerusalem Council were servants of God, so they should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying Him, and they shouldn't be followed instead of God even if that was what they were doing. For example, in Exodus 12:48, a Gentile was required to become circumcised if they wanted to eat of the Passover lamb, so that is a legitimate reason why a Gentile might want to become circumcised, which the Jerusalem Council was not speaking against.

God is not required to sign a contract with us in order for us to be obligated to obey walk in His way, but rather we are obligated to do that because God is sovereign, while His contracts simply inform us of what has always been and will always be our obligation. In other words, it is not the case that someone who isn't under the New Covenant could argue that they don't need to repent from what that contract says is sin because they hadn't signed that contract. God has the authority to judge the whole world because of our sin regardless of whether or not we've agreed to refrain from sin. in Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so I don't see how you have any grounds to think that adherence to the Torah is not part of the contract.

Not being under God's law would be the opposite of really good news, so thankfully God has given us His law in accordance with the Good News. The Psalms express an extremely positive view of the Torah, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of obeying the Torah, then we will share it as Paul did (Romans 7:22), while anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying it is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. We should use Israel's disobedience to the Torah as an example of what we should avoid doing, not as an example that we should emulate (1 Corinthians 10:1-13).

Just making it up as you go along, to fit your belief system?

If you do not establish that your concept of the ceremonial law contains an identical list of laws as Paul's concept of the ceremonial law, then you are misunderstanding him by interpreting him as referring to the ceremonial law, however, the Paul never lists which laws are part of the ceremonial law and never even refers to that as being a category of law. If a group of people were to create lists of which laws they considered to be part of the ceremonial law, then they would have a wide variety of lists and none of those people should interpret Paul as referring to a list that they just created. If I categorized God's laws based upon which part of the body is most commonly used to obey/disobey them, such as with the law against theft being a hand law, then interpreted Paul was referring to a category that I had just created without establishing that he categorized God's law in the same manner, such as interpreting Colossians 2:14 as nailing hand laws to the cross, then I would be making the same sort of error that you are making.

Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins, so what was nailed to his cross was not any of God's laws, but the list of the sin that we have committed. For example:

1.) You shall not commit murder.

2.) This person has been found guilty of murder.

The first is an example of a law that is for our own good while the second is an example of a handwritten ordinance that was was against someone that was nailed to their cross in order to announce why they were being executed, which was instead nailed to Christ's cross.

The existence of the category of moral law would imply that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that are not in that category, however, there is no example in the Bible where someone's disobedience to God is stated to be moral. 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. Legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for you to suggest that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to suggest that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and is therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.

Not at all. I don't see any grounds for thinking that we should be free to profane what is holy to God.

Indeed, we should worship God on every day, which includes obeying His command to keep the Sabbath holy. The Sabbath is a precious give that God gave for our own good in order to bless us, so we should not spurn it.

In Hebrews 8:10-13, the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, the Torah did not become obsolete along with it. God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to testify about His righteousness are therefore eternally valid, so God's righteousness are His instructions for how to testify about His righteousness will ever become obsolete.

You still don't get it. Dealing with God on the basis of how well we do keeping the law is a failed proposition. How many people will be in heaven because they attained to the righteousness of the law? Not one. So not a good strategy if heaven is your goal.
Emulating the Jews would be a failed strategy because they insisted on dealing with God on a performance level. That is what you are actually doing. Their problem wasn't that they disobeyed. Their problem was that they thought they actually kept the law. Thus, they never saw their need of grace.
You can twist and contort the grace of God to include the law, but it won't end up being grace any longer.

I don't see how you can think that it is just for God to hold people accountable for following laws that can't currently be followed, especially when there are examples in Scripture of people not being held accountable for not following laws that they couldn't follow. 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 becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross, not the way to make void his sacrifice. However, even if God holds us accountable for not obeying laws that we can't obey and I was not doing what I am supposed to be doing, that wouldn't mean that I was wrong about the fact that followers of God should follow His commands in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow.

I do not either.... that is not what I was talking about.... even if God didn't tell us to follow all the Jewish rules, we should anyway??

Every time God gave us rules, he gave us consequences for violating those rules. If you eat of that fruit, you will die.
If you even touch that mountain, you will die.
God said nothing about "follow these rules about the sabbath" when He sanctified it.
We are to remember the sabbath, and keep it holy.
How do YOU see that played out? What does "keep it holy" mean to you? Set apart from what? Set apart, how?

I see "character" as being synonymous with "nature", such as by saying that God is holy, righteous, and good I would both be describing aspects of God's character traits and aspects of His nature. If it makes a significant difference to you, I should have said "nature" instead of "character".

So when God has commanded something and you interpret the author of Hebrews as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then you have a choice to make about who has the higher authority and which one you should follow. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if your interpretation of Hebrews were correct, then those who consider it to be written by a false prophet would be correctly acting in accordance with what God has instructed His people to do. In Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, but you've interpreted Hebrews as being in opposition to the truth. The Bible consistently calls for our repentance from our disobedience to what God has commanded, but never calls for us to repent from our obedience to God.

Nature character there is no difference, he is one whole his nature his traits his personality the very essence of who he is why should there be any diffrence? he is one not seperate or many can you imagine diving so deep into him that it is as an endless ocean? that you continue to sink deeper and deeper into the ocean that is his heart? he more than spiritual physically more tha doctrine and understanding and he will will only reveal this part of himself the depth of himself to those wgo seek this depth of his heart.

You see through the written word alone you doctrine you beliefs are based on this that us why the scripture is so confusing so divided why when you read it the true meaning of it does not speak to you why you go into debates not holding the full truth why you will always be at odds with other verses going against you never any conclusion no understanding only arguments.

Obedience to God's law has never been about needing to have a good enough performance. We would not earn our righteousness as a wage by obeying God's law even if we managed to have perfect obedience to it (Romans 4:1-5), so that was never the goal of why we should obey it. Rather, emulating Israel's disobedience to God is a failed strategy. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, it says that God's law is not too difficult for us to obey, and in in Romans 10:5-8, it references that as the word of faith that we proclaim, so believing that we can keep it is a matter of putting our faith in God's word. God is gracious to us by teaching us to obey His law (Psalms 119:29, Exodus 33:13, Genesis 6:8-9, Romans 1:5, Titus 2:11-14), so obedience to it is the way to see our need of grace. I don't see how you can accuse me of twisting and contorting the grace of God to include God's law when Scripture directly states that they wanted God to be gracious to them by teaching them to obey His law.

One is what you do. The other is what you are. We do what we are.
In Adam, we acquired our sin nature. In Christ, we become partakers of the divine nature. The one we resemble will be the one we walk in. If we walk according to the flesh, we will fulfill the lusts of the flesh. If we walk according to the Spirit, we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It's that simple. No amount of effort on our part not to sin while walking in the flesh will keep us from sinning. No amount of temptation will lure us into sin if we are walking in the Spirit.
Incidentally, this is why Jesus told us in Matthew 6:33 that we were to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness first.

Even if God has never made any covenants with man, then we would still be obligated to act in accordance with God's nature and to refrain from sin that is contrary to His nature. The God of Israel has given instructions for how to grow in a relationship with Him through the Mosaic Law, so anyone who is interested in growing in a relationship with Him should follow those instructions regardless of whether God gave those directions directly to them or whether God gave those instructions to Jews in order to teach the nations how to have a relationship with Him. If someone considers the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore shares the view that they express of the Mosaic Law, then they should voluntarily want to have the delight of getting to obey it even if they don't think that they are obligated to do that. Keeping the Sabbath holy is about testifying that there is a God who created the world in six days, who rested on the 7th, who made it holy, who sanctifies His people, and who saves His people out of bondage, so if you believe in the truth of these things, then you should voluntarily want to testify about about them by keeping the Sabbath holy rather than bearing false witness against those things.

I see what we do as being synonymous with who we are. How would you describe who someone is without making reference to what they do? Jesus expressed the divine nature by setting an example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is also what we do when we are partaking in the divine nature through follow his example. The fruits of the Spirit are all aspects of God's character/nature.

He lived as He did because we needed Him to fulfill all righteousness on our behalf. We cannot emulate Him. But He can live in us.

Apart from Christ, what commandment have you ever kept well enough to fulfill the righteousness of that law before God?

According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor had fulfilled the entire law, so even if it were possibly for him to fulfill the law on our behalf, we have no need for him to do so, nor should we want him to deprive us of getting to do that and take away our gift of salvation. I’ve fulfilled any number of commands.