This is a debate forum, isn't it? Are you asking me to just :clap you and that is it?
Uh no, I'm asking you to actually substantiate claims like that you think I'm wrong instead of just saying so.
I referenced my position which contradicts your point.
I suppose you can say you did. But those that Paul speaks of aren't the entirety of "The commandments" but just portions.
When Paul said in 1st Cor 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong , and defraud , and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. is that not the second verse that says to follow the commandments of love?
"Commandments of Love" includes the entire commandments, the entire Mosaic Law. That's why Jesus says all the Laws HANG on Love of God and Love of Neighbor. What Paul speaks of here are a few of the Laws. Now the issue of whether Paul himself was preaching in favor of the Law or against it, and whether Galatians is being radically misinterpreted because of the fact that gentiles weren't even required to be circumcised in the first place, is a matter of dispute. However, "The commandments" since the days of Moses are no different than the "Commandments of Love". Where do you see the difference? There is no such textual distinction between "Civil Law" and "Ceremonial Law" as Aquinas and later writers tried to make to get past this problem, and even then they can't even agree which is which, so it's impossible to say which commandments are in a different classification.
Do you believe that Paul gave a comprehensive end all list of what constitutes this "Law of Love" that one must follow?
Regardless, the Book of Revelation says the Saints are those who follow "The commandments" of God. It does not say"The commandments of Love". There is absolutely no reason to separate "The commandments" from "The commandments" just because it fits an arbitrary theological doctrine of antinomianism.
It would appear that it just might be you who do not see that Paul preached what Jesus preached
Paul seems to preach that the Law itself is no longer important, which Jesus said quite the opposite of.
and that you misunderstand when Jesus was talking about the law vs when He was talking about the New Covenant.
Jesus never said the Law was going to be any different in the "New Covenant" which is only for "Israel and Judah". It would appear it just might be you and the rest of the Antinomian Church that radically deviates from what Jesus taught. He said those who break and teach to break the Least of the commandments (in reference to Matthew 5:17 which is about the entirety of the Law itself) shall be called the Least in the Kingdom. The issue of what constitutes the "New Covenant" itself is a disputable topic as well. Messianic Jews for example believe it's merely a "Renewed Covenant". We see that in the Book of Acts, even by the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" (which may be, according to some modern and early 20th century scholars, a complete fabrication by those trying to reconcile Nazarene and Pauline Christianity) that James and the Jerusalem Church will still completely obedient to the Law of Moses. Paul even took a Nazarite Vow to prove he wasn't violating it.
With that said, by all means please tell me where you think there's a deep distinction between "The commandments" in reference to the "New Covenant", name some verses specifically from Jesus. Do you think Luke 16:17 is such a verse?
He spoke about both during His walk on this earth.
Again, it's debatable as to what exactly the "New Covenant" entails and what Jesus means by the "Commandments" in terms of what it means. It can be just as well argued that Jesus was teaching a return to the commandments the way Moses intended, away from what the Pharisees and Sadducees were misinterpreting them into, and Jesus actually says this very specifically when he says that they have deviated from it for their own traditions.
There is a difference between when Jesus was talking to the Jews in context of the law and when He was talking about the grace of Abraham before the law was even instituted
Then you should have no problem proving that Jesus was talking about "The commandments" in a case where he was talking about the grace of Abraham without any question or doubt. By all means, provide an example.
And of course this would include the distinction between clean and unclean animals and the sacrificing of 10% of your income to a Priest of course, right?
Anyways, my point is that those who survive will be those who obey "The commandments". If you want to believe that "The commandments" means something other than "The commandments" in the context of the Law, then have at it, but I would give it some sincere prayerful inquiry as to what exactly God meant before you risk your soul in the process chasing after some manmade Theological doctrine that not even the earliest Jerusalem Church followed.