[Petrosius]

It was set aside when it was super-ceded by the new covenant, but it was NOT changed.

A distinction without a difference.

[MHGinTN]

No, the distinction is incomprehensible to the carnal minded. A previous post tried to cite the law of circumcision, questioning if it is still in effect ... for Christians or catholics we would presume was inferred, erroneously.

The Abrahamic covenant was not annulled when the laws of Moses were brought down off of the mountain. Apparently, that lesson is lost on the carnally minded. It is for just such confusion that dispensational perspective is so useful as a tool in studying the Word of God.

If I asked you to continue to attend the Mass every chance you get, but to IN YOUR MIND, YOUR HEART, accept the Eucharist as a REMEBRANCE of what Christ finished for you ont he Cross and not literally eating His flesh, would you try it for a week or two and see what God might reveal to your heart?

[MHGinTN]

Perhaps Galatians, the third chapter, beginning at verse 15 and to the end of the chapter will help to clarify the distinction which some think is not a difference. Paul actually addressed that very question!

[RnMomof7]

It was set aside when it was super-ceded by the new covenant, but it was NOT changed.
A distinction without a difference.

No the Old covenant was never "set aside" or changed.. The OT was a foreshadow Of Christ.. it was a promise ....

The laws that followed those covenants were such that NO MAN COULD KEEP...

A "covenant" or "agreement" is not synonymous with "law."...Only God Himself could fulfill the laws He gave ..AND HE DID... ALLOWING FOR A NEW COVENANT

Douay-Rheims Bible
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. ..Mat5; 17