We are not yet in the New Covenant prophecied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel - that is the Millennial reign

I don't see any arguments from you.

But if the action I perform is an act that demonstrates love towards God or an individual, it cannot be in violation of a commandment by definition. It is the perversion of the commandment that allows for an action that fulfills the law to appear to transgress it.

Straight to ad hominem. I'm not at all surprised.

I have centuries of agreement by the greater Church body on my side. It's on you to prove that's wrong. So far, your arguments are lacking.

When Jesus said, "It was finished". His role was finished. How are people like Abraham going to be saved? By works or by the blood of Jesus? By the blood of Jesus. So are you saying that because Jesus lived after Abraham, Abraham cannot be saved because "It is not yet finished"?

Again, I am not arguing if we are in a new covenant. My argument specifically is: are we in the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah and Ezekiel? If yes, why haven't the prophecies mentioned there that would happen before the start of the New Covenant been fulfilled?

Hebrews 10 is wrong. The Old Covenant is not something you do away with and especially not because there was something wrong with it. Stop propagating the bullcrap that Paul (I like Paul, not sure why he did that there) promotes that the Old Covenant and the Torah has some flaw in it. The Old Testament and it's laws and prophecies are beyond amazing. But I agree that so is Jesus' death on the cross. Doesn't mean one is flawed and needs replacement. Paul is wrong. And Jesus said everything in the Old Covenant will be fulfilled? Has it? No. So how can we enter a New Covenant before that?

I agree with your last statement. I love that too.

If that is the case then Jesus was violating the commandment to keep the Sabbath. That's why my explanation is better than yours. Jesus had love for G-d and and was showing love towards him both at the same time when he did not keep the Sabbath and saved the person because he knew that in the heart of G-d, what is more important is a life He created than the commandments He created for man. Going by your logic, Jesus did love G-d but was not showing love to G-d in that specific act because He didn't care about that specific commandment at that moment.

Even in case of people, when I disobey my Dad for a good cause, it is understood that he knows what my intention is. So I am at the same time loving him, showing loving to him and not following his teachings.

I think you're attempting word salad to defend yourself at the moment.

I'm not. Jesus never sinned. So anything that gave the appearance that He sinned has to be a perversion of the law. It's actually very simple.
I do recommend the house salad with ranch dressing if you like salad.

Just one question. If the Bible is the inspired word of God and Holy Spirit inspired the writers, (Old and New Testament), then how and why would God put misinformation in it? I just can’t believe that.

And I prefer the house Caesar salad, thank you.

Even I never claimed that Jesus sinned. I said Pikuach Nefesh took precedence to the law. Simple. But you said a person cannot both commit sin and love G-d or show love towards G-d at the same time. That is not true. Even the prophets sinned but they had both love of G-d and showed love.

But when one commits an act of love towards God, he cannot be transgressing the law. If someone says a loving act towards God is sinful, they have perverted the law.

Oh my. Can you use Scripture to back this up? I am asking because if the above was so obvious, why doesn't dMoses say this at the end of the 10 commandments or so? I do agree with you. But this is an intrepretation we make. It is not written in Scripture that way and I agree that it is common sense. But my point is, there was never such an understanding that the law can be relaxed in such circumstances cause the Bible doesn't talk about it. Jesus does it and then the Talmud talks about Pikuach Nefesh. So another question to you is: if you believe Scripture is the Word of G-d, why do you go for a non-Scriptural explanation of something? You must call Jesus a sinner because he didn't keep it to the dot. But I don't because I believe Scripture is not the only word of G-d. Anything that is truth is the Word of G-d. The challenge for us is to think and understand what is truth and not.

Romans 13:8...love is the fulfillment of the law
Matthew 22:36-40...loving God and loving others...on these 2 commandments hang all the law and the prophets

Using the NT to justify OT commandments? That's like justifying Muhammad using the Quran. Anyone can come later and say things but how do you justify the acts of Jesus using the OT? Imagine yourself in the shoes of the High Priests who see Jesus not keeping the Sabbath. How will you justify Jesus?

If that is the case then Jesus was violating the commandment to keep the Sabbath. That's why my explanation is better than yours. Jesus had love for G-d and and was showing love towards him both at the same time when he did not keep the Sabbath and saved the person because he knew that in the heart of G-d, what is more important is a life He created than the commandments He created for man. Going by your logic, Jesus did love G-d but was not showing love to G-d in that specific act because He didn't care about that specific commandment at that moment.

Even in case of people, when I disobey my Dad for a good cause, it is understood that he knows what my intention is. So I am at the same time loving him, showing loving to him and not following his teachings.

I think you're attempting word salad to defend yourself at the moment.

Using the NT to justify OT commandments? That's like justifying Muhammad using the Quran. Anyone can come later and say things but how do you justify the acts of Jesus using the OT? Imagine yourself in the shoes of the High Priests who see Jesus not keeping the Sabbath. How will you justify Jesus?

A lot of dislikes by the user "selahsays". Now I know why Paul said, "women must keep their mouths shut". Nietzche said "G-d is dead". He was wrong. Philosophy is dead. Why? Because we gave women equality. Men are the philosophical powerhouses of society but there are no longer any real men in society. All just women and effeminate men who follow the popular idea and feel comforted by groupthink and a sense of belonging. When men stopped thinking, women started taking center-stage and society started dying.

I would love to know why she uses the dislike button, BTW. I don't mind the dislikes, just prefer getting a reason for the same.