You're making a case against your own claim.You don't really know what they did because you weren't there, especially in times of yore before the exile. For a start, the law of Moses was likely to have been originally written in the proto-Hebrew alphabet discovered written on the walls of the mines in Timna and Serabit el Khadim and then become gradually 'translated' into the modern Hebrew of today, where Hebrew is also much indebted to the Canaanite language. Over the course of 1500 years, languages and words do change, just like in English. Imagine reading English of 1500 years ago. You wouldn't understand it.
That language changes over time is the very reason we can date it's authorship.
What the spirit commands? So you just do what you feel like?Indeed. That doesn't mean to say that every last dot "has to" be obeyed. It all depends on what the Spirit commands. Most of the time it does enforce a fairly standard conformity, especially in respect of the higher commandments. Not so much over ritual which was only a copy and shaddow of heavenly things.
If Jesus didn't mean what he said then why say it?
The Trinity was just invented to deal with the conundrum of who and what Jesus was.What I just said came direct from Heb 1:3. Trinitarianism is a problem not only in the way it is formulated in words that aren't found in the bible, but because it confuses concepts and muddles everything to insist on a conformity not with the bible, but with Hermetic philosophy and early Greek and Latin "fathers" who even conceded that Trinitarianism was a blend of Jewish and Greek concepts.
There are "three that are called God and reverenced as God" per 2 Thess 2:4, but that doesn't mean to say that "God is comprised of three persons" is a scripturally accurate thing to say, for none of the apostles say this. The whole subject of Trinitarianism is a minefield, but what you need to know is the scripture declares the Father to be axiomatically God, and the Logos is God because the Father dwells in the Logis, spiritually speaking. This is sensible because otherwise the Father would potentially cease being God. All it is saying is that whatever the Father dwells in must itself (or himself) be God.
I don't understand how the Father would potentially cease being God.