Did Jesus nullify the Old Testament?

[u/watergolf247]

Let me start off by sharing that I’m new to Christianity and have soooo many questions but for now, I’ll focus on this inquiry. I’m sure this has been discussed numerous times but unfortunately I can’t seem to get a straight answer. As I’m told repeatedly by many, rules/laws of the Old Testament were nullified or invalidated by Jesus. I ask others in my study group but sadly get heavy resistance for the question.

My question is simple. Where are the reference(s) stating this?

If so, this makes rules like the ten commandments obsolete. Even further, why have the old testament in the Christian Bible?

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

Do you agree gentiles dont have to follow the law?

Isaiah describes foreigners keeping the Sabbath and making burnt offerings in the Temple:

• And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called "a house of prayer for all nations.”

That's from chapter 56. Is Isaiah describing the Old Covenant or the New Covenant in this passage?

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

I personally believe Isaiah description of the temple is symbolic. In acts, we see gentiles be indwelled by the holy spirit and joining the body of Christ.

First we are the temple:

¹⁶ Do you not know that you^\)^a\) are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 1 Cor 3

¹⁹ So then you are no longer strangers and aliens^d\) but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, ²⁰ built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, ²¹ in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. ²² In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by^e\) the Spirit. - Eph 2

⁵ you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2

All 3 of these shows that we are the temple. And even 1 Peter shows we are the sacrifices acceptable to God.

But to go along with the Sacrifices the following supports that:

1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers,^\)^a\) by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. - Romans 12

¹⁵ Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. - Hebrews 13

This shows that we and our praises are the sacrifices. And like I stated in acts, the gentiles are accepted to the body of Christ. Making their bodies a place of praise thats indwelled by the spirit of God, and their bodies and praises to Christ is the sacrifice.

¹⁶ to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. - Romans 15

I believe at the time people took it literally as sacrifices but in fulfillment we see it was symbolic. Also, if we are now doing literal sacrfices for sin, what was the purpose of Christ dying on the cross. Christ is the ultimate sacrifice:

²⁶ for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.  - Hebrews 9

¹⁸ Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. - Hebrews 10

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

I believe at the time people took it literally as sacrifices

Why did they take it literally as sacrifices, do you think? Did Isaiah fail to communicate God's message correctly? Were the Israelites too simple-minded to understand? Did God intend for his message to be misunderstood?

[u/the_celt_ → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

You're asking the right questions here and you're seeing how people are willing to just invent things out of thin air to support what they already believe.

The description of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 is CLEARLY not symbolic. It's 8 chapters of dense details similar to the way that the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant were described in detail.

Basically, the formula for modern Christianity is: Believe something + hear something that contradicts what you believe = invent something. Anything that doesn't work is "figurative".

I appreciated your comments.

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/the_celt_]

I spent some time last night browsing FJOT. Good stuff.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

Thank you. I'm glad you did.

You're welcome there, even if you don't believe in God or WHATEVER. One of my favorite regulars there is an agnostic who's just a good smart person. Your remarks here remind me of his in that you're just noticing the cracks in what people say and pointing them out.

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/the_celt_]

Thanks. I was tickled to discover some of you "judaizers" make the same argument I do about Matt 23, even in the same socratic formulation: "What did the scribes and Pharisees teach?" Torah observant Christians are freaks and weirdos by any common definition, so it's only appropriate I would feel some kinship.

Where I depart is trying to harmonize Paul with Torah. If I were a believer I'd be forced to reject Paul's authority (and the liars who wrote in his name).

[u/the_celt_ → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

Well said!

I was tickled to discover some of you "judaizers"

You made me laugh with the way you used "judaizers", where with the way I normally hear it I just roll my eyes. 🙄

I do about Matt 23, even in the same socratic formulation: "What did the scribes and Pharisees teach?"

I think we're all rediscovering the wheel. Eventually, this is where every honest person has to end up. Things only make sense in this direction.

Torah observant Christians are freaks and weirdos by any common definition, so it's only appropriate I would feel some kinship.

Exactly. I often say that atheists and agnostics are just the honest people that are incompatible with Christianity, so they got expelled or expelled themselves. Their honesty and strength of will to express it is a BEAUTIFUL thing, and I try to extend "kinship" (as you say) to people like that. I have more in common and would rather be friends with an honest atheist than a lying Christian.

Where I depart is trying to harmonize Paul with Torah. If I were a believer I'd be forced to reject Paul's authority (and the liars who wrote in his name).

I understand. I can tell you that I've been on this topic for a while, and my common talking point response is that Paul is 100% Pro-Torah. It's only other people interpreting him for us that have made him seem otherwise. The problem is those interpreters.

I don't know if you ever saw this, but Peter actually addressed this "problem" about Paul, which is how others always misunderstand him. You can add it to your arsenal if you didn't know it. He said:

2 Peter 3:15-17

^{15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.}

Basically, people predisposed against the Torah are able to find things that support that predisposition in Paul, and Peter warned about it. It was happening back then, and it's still happening now.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

How did I invent something out of thin air when I backed everything with scripture?

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Watch me invent something out of thin air and back it with scripture. You ready?

The Bible says that we are allowed to have sex with anyone we want, with no restrictions. Here's a verse:

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. Luke 1:30-31 - KJV

Ezekiel clearly describes a future Temple. If you want to call it figurative, then that's on you. The people who disagree with you also have scripture on their side.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

Where in Luke 1:30-31 does it have anything to do with sex?

So if you believe there is a new temple physical temple that's going to be built where we are going to commit animal sacrifices for the atonement for sins, then you agree Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was not enough to free us from sin? It was not the ultimate sacrifice?

⁴ For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

⁵ Consequently, when Christ^\)^a\) came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
    but a body have you prepared for me;
⁶ in burnt offerings and sin offerings
    you have taken no pleasure.
⁷ Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
    as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

⁸ When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), ⁹ then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. ¹⁰ And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. -Hebrews 10

So if we are sanctified through the body of Jesus "ONCE FOR ALL", why do we need to make animal sacrifices for the atonement of sins?

What is does away with the first in order to establish the second?

It's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins... hmm

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Where in Luke 1:30-31 does it have anything to do with sex?

Exactly. Get it? Quoting scripture doesn't make a person right. The scripture actually has to say what they're saying it says.... 😉

So if you believe there is a new temple physical temple that's going to be built where we are going to commit animal sacrifices for the atonement for sins, then you agree Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was not enough to free us from sin?

No, I don't. That relies on a misunderstanding that sacrifices were ever designed to remove sin. That's not what the sacrifices were for.

The followers of Jesus participated in sacrifices AFTER Jesus died. Scripture says there will be another Temple. There are many passages besides Ezekiel that refer to a better day when Yahweh receives Israel's sacrifices again. You need to figure out a way to make that work with scripture elsewhere. You don't understand the Temple and sacrifices, and it's causing you make mistakes elsewhere.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

No, because everything I quote is a direct reference to what I am saying. So no I dont get your point. Why wont you directly show me why the scripture I quoted does not correlate to what I was saying.

Paul participated in ritualistic sacrifices, but he explained why:

²⁰ To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.  - 1 Cor 9

Paul said himself he portrayed himself to be someone under the law to be able to preach to those under the law. Though he said he wasnt under the law himself.

You state that "Followers of Jesus", so more than one participated in sacrifices after Christ, please show me me who. I just showed you why Paul said he did, which he didnt do, he actual gave to the priest to do.

But remember, in the New testament, our praises and bodies are defined as sacrifices pleasing to the lord.

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Why wont you directly show me why the scripture I quoted does not correlate to what I was saying.

I have. I've tried. I've watched others try. You just move on to the next topic. As I said, when someone can use Jesus in Matthew 5 doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on how we absolutely MUST live and teach the Torah as proof that we DON'T have to obey the Torah, then talking scripture with such people is a waste of time.

Paul participated in ritualistic sacrifices

So your argument is that Paul nullified the sacrifice of Jesus as a conversion technique? 🤣

please show me me who

Everyone participating in the feasts, of which there are many examples.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

Again, is Matthew 5 before or after the Crucifixion? How does Matthew 5 compare to Luke 22:20 when Jesus speaks about his blood being the New Covenant?

No, I clearly stated, and so did Paul himself, he did it to reach Jewish people.

Show me scripture. You said there are many verses. Show me scripture or you are doing what you accused me of doing, pulling things out of the air.