This is New Covenant Theology. I don't believe this. I believe in Covenant Theology, that is, that the new covenant existed before the cross, as Tom pointed out. In fact, the new covenant is the only means of salvation. Nobody has ever been saved through the old covenant.

"And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect" (Gal. 3:17).

About the commandaments of Jesus, they existed long before Jesus lived on earth. They were not new, and were right there in the law of Moses. How do you see that?

If we are talking about covenants, a question to ask is, what were covenants sealed with?

"Is the Sabbath that important?" No, not more than the other nine commandments. Yes, Sabbath-keeping is beautiful and extremely rewarding, however, it is not more satisfying than living in harmony with the other nine commandments. It is one law, not ten laws. So, in reality, it is impossible to keep or break one without also keeping or breaking all ten. The only reason SDA's emphasize Sabbath-keeping is because it is the only commandment under attack. Defending it becomes important because breaking it has become a non-issue for most Christians. The same would hold true if one of the other commandments was under attack.

I know of no Christian who argues believers are at liberty to break the moral law because Jesus abolished it at the cross. No one, that I know of, believes it is right or righteous to have other gods before God, to make idols representing God, to take His name in vain, to dishonor parents, to murder, to commit adultery, to steal, to lie, or to covet. Yet, most people are perfectly fine with disregarding the Sabbath commandment. It doesn't make sense to me. If all we do is imitate Jesus' godly example and live in harmony with the ten commandments we cannot go wrong. To say otherwise is to imply Jesus got it wrong.

Seriously, you claim to know american christians who see something wrong with coveting and therefore joining the race of outscoring whatever the neighbours bought last time?

(I know they exist, but they are also few enough to be newsworthy)

This is an old and unsubtantiated arguement which fails the test of even casual scrutiny. (Essentially it is saying that if you keep all the commandments but break one, you are breaking all the commandments. Therefore you are keeping all and breaking all at the same time.) There is a quantum difference between not keeping Sabbath and killing someone or sleeping with your neighbor's wife (or husband).

Breaking one commandment does not break all the commandments. Period. True, breaking one commandment is just as much a sin as breaking another, but falls far short of "breaking all".

Very good, I like that....what I use is what if you find your beloved and you tell her she means so much to you and declare your love and she sets a date for you to spend time together..But you feel you can skip it or worse go see a old flame, and then tell your beloved it wasnt that big of a deal so you didnt make the date, hmmm...

So your beloved writes a law which says that 24 hours every week will be your special date, and if you ever fail to make this date, your relationship is not only over but your beloved will have her brothers kill you...

It's in fact an old argument, since it comes from biblical times.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' said also, 'Do not kill.' If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law" (James 2:10, 11).

And that one point also includes the 4th Commandment, which wouldn't have been written there by the finger of God in the first place, if the Sabbath wasn't that important to Him.

Assuming you're referring to my last post. Please note what I said - "I know of no Christian who argues believers are at liberty to break the moral law because Jesus abolished it at the cross."