Did the coming of Jesus render the Law of the old testament null and void

The Mosaic Laws were the basis for the Jewish legal system when they were an independent nation. Jesus did not do away with the Jewish legal system. The Jewish followers of Jesus still followed the Mosaic Laws as allowed by the Romans. The Mosaic laws as presented in the OT were the laws of a functioning government. Notice many of the laws also pertained to those living within the land but not of Jewish descent. It was the foundation of a legal system. At some point Christianity was no longer part of Judaism and since the Jews were no in power, the Gentiles weren't required to follow the Jewish laws.A History of Christianity by Kenneth Scott Latourette, 1953. In Acts, we see that the Gentiles were given some basics to adhere to that would make fellowship between the Gentiles and Jews easier. The implication is that those basic rules would work as they learned the ropes of Judaism. Unfortunately Jewish Christianity became extinct. None of this made the Mosaic Laws or Jewish Laws null and void for Jewish believers and Gentiles never were required to follow the Mosaic laws aside from when they were part of a functioning legal system or if one joined Judaism.Jesus didn't have the authority to do away with a legal system.

quote:

---

So, if we want to figure out who to blame for the Christian disregard for the Jewish Law as originally practiced by the earliest band of Jesus' followers, we can look to the most zealous anti-Law early Christian we have on record: Paul. As much as our records tell us, Paul created a Christianity marketable to Gentiles that stressed the belief that the Law was no longer applicable.

​

Paul's the one we should blame. Let's blame Paul.

---

I don't feel that Paul did nullify the Mosaic Laws. He didn't have that authority. Paul was Torah obedient. His issues were more about Gentile Christians being compelled to do rituals they didn't need to do to be part of the Jewish community.Galatians 2:11 is not about abolishing the Mosaic Laws for the Jews. Politics of the time. It was more about hypocrisy.Don't confuse justification with expected behavior of a group and don't confuse Paul's arguments concerning justification and behavior. His argument is that Gentile Christians weren't adopted into God's family because of stellar behavior, but through belief just like Abraham. (Romans 4) He didn't nullify any laws that pertained to the Christian Jews or Gentiles. Right behavior was still expected.Even in the Mosaic Laws, not everything pertains to both Jews and Gentiles.

quote:

---

My point was that there were folk making declarations that becoming Christian didn't necessarily mean keeping all of the Torah and that one of those people was definitely Paul. Paul said that following Jesus didn't necessarily mean following the Law.

---

quote:

---

It's about a lot of things. But I wasn't trying to interpret Paul's message, I was simply reading his words as insight into the nature of the early Christian movement, and Galatians 2:11 does indicate that at least some early Christians were working from the viewpoint that following Jesus meant keeping the Jewish Law. I mean, why else would Cephas refuse to eat with the Gentiles? And what else would the 'circumcision party' be other than a group of Jesus followers who believed following Jesus meant following the Law?

---

The Laws in the OT are the basis for the Jewish Laws. By the first century there was more to the Jewish Laws than just what was written in the OT. This thread is about whether the Law of the OT was rendered null and void. Not Jewish Law in general.The circumcision group has been identified as Jewish nationalists, not necessarily Jewish Christians. I don't see it written in the OT that Jews were forbidden to eat with Gentiles (613 Mitzvot). I think it was more a part of the "fence around the Torah". I agree that Paul fought the idea that Gentile Christians should be compelled to take on the full weight of Judaism, but they could still do so by choice. Jewish Christians were still required to follow the 613 Commandments from the OT, but the Gentiles were only required to follow the rules mentioned in Acts 15.I also agree that Paul made it clear that taking on the full weight of Judaism was not necessary to become a Gentile Christian, just as one did not have to give up full Judaism to become a Jewish Christian either.Paul was tearing down a "fence", not the laws of the OT.

quote:

---

Are we going to talk about the parts of the Law that were dropped as Christianity developed?

---

Christianity didn't drop any laws. The OT laws were a part of a nation's legal system. Christianity didn't and still doesn't have a legal system.The Jewish Christians were still bound by the OT laws and the Jewish laws. The Non-Jewish Christians were never bound by the OT laws or the Jewish laws, so there was nothing to drop.Jewish Christians died out and the Non-Jewish Christians were left to continue Christianity. If these Non-Jewish Christians decided to follow any "laws" from the OT, then they chose the "laws" they wanted to follow, they didn't drop anything.Christians just have rules for behavior.

Since you feel that OT laws were dropped by Christians, please present your argument. List the OT laws you feel were dropped by Christians, when they were dropped and why, and provide support for your position.The idea of the word drop as you're using it means to give up, abandon, or discontinue. After the failure of the Jewish Revolt that destroyed the temple, surviving Jewish Christians may have abandoned actions that might divulge their Jewish heritage, but their actions didn't affect the OT Laws on the books for the Jews.Before 175 BCE intellectual Jewish reformists wanted to improve Judaism.
Excerpt from History of the Jews by Paul Johnson 1987: Jewish reformists were working on adjusting the Jewish laws for Jews before Jesus was even born. IMO, adjusting laws as a civilization changes is pretty standard.The only OT rules the Non-Jewish Christians were supposedly bound by were the rules given in Acts 15.Abstain from:
(1) Eating food sacrificed to idols;
(2) Sexual immorality;
(3) Eating the meat of strangled animals; and
(4) Eating blood.

quote:

---

Again; you're just nitpicking. If I use the phrase 'made unnecessary', will you stop pretending you don't understand what I'm saying?

---

Unnecessary for what? Present your argument.Christians weren't required to follow the law to become Christians, therefore the laws weren't necessary for that purpose to begin with.Jewish Christians were Christians because they believed Jesus was the Messiah and followed his teachings, not because they followed Jewish law. They were still bound by Jewish law because they were Jewish, but that wasn't part of being Christian. Non-Jewish Christians weren't bound by Jewish law because they weren't Jewish, but they were still Christians because of their belief. They had no OT laws to drop.The rules they asked the Non-Jewish Christians to follow in Acts 15 were a means to make it easier for fellowship between the groups since the Jewish Christians still had to follow Jewish Law.According to the OT stories, God did not become the God of Abraham because Abraham followed laws. The laws were given because they believed in God. They were a nation that needed laws to govern them.I've already made it clear I'm not talking about justification for becoming a Christian or for being accepted by God. That was Paul's point. Don't use the laws as justification, OT or otherwise. He didn't do away with anything, just put them in their proper place.

quote:

---

Sure; and part of that 'adjustment' as the Jewish Jesus Movement developed into Gentile Christianity was the decision that all but the most basic and expected Laws were unnecessary.

---

Unnecessary for what? Also some support would be nice.

quote:

---

And how many Christian sects still feel themselves bound by those last two?

---

If a group of Non-Jewish Christians entertained a group of Jewish Christians who still ate kosher, would they serve kosher or expect the Jews to deal with it? My guess is they would serve kosher if they understood anything that Paul taught.Once the Jewish Christians died away, there would be no conflict to avoid. The Non-Jewish Christians were no longer part of a Jewish community. That had nothing to do with Jesus or Paul.So IMO, the last two rules would not be "necessary" as long as Non-Jewish Christians aren't fellowshipping around the food table with Jewish Christians. No blood pudding next to the veggie platter. If all you're arguing is that the OT laws aren't necessary to be a Christian, I agree. But, then they never were. That's why I say there wasn't really anything to drop or "make" unnecessary. That doesn't make the OT laws null and void, it just makes them not applicable.

quote:

---

Not so, PD. The Jewish temple holy place was done away with as I said and the temple was destroyed shortly later, never to be rebuilt in this dispensation of Christianity. Not so, PD. The Jewish temple holy place was done away with as I said and the temple was destroyed shortly later, never to be rebuilt in this dispensation of Christianity.

---

I agree, the Jews supposedly couldn't do the sacrificial rituals after the destruction of the temple. That had nothing to do with Jesus though. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD stopped the sacrifices for lack of a place, not Jesus.

quote:

---

Don't forget, Jesus and his apostles were all Jews. It was all of them, including Jesus, who never kept the letter of the law. Thus Jesus told the man healed of palsy from birth to pick up his bed and walk. Jewish Levitical law forbad that. It was Jesus and his apostles who did not wash their hands after plucking corn from the field, as required by Jewish Levitical law of the letterl

---

Shammai and Hillel debated over the letter of the law and the spirit of the law long before Jesus came around. Also note some laws were part of the Oral Law or the "fence around the Torah". Show me the Scripture that supports these things you mention were part of the OT law. Hillel tended to win out. Supposedly Paul was also from the school of Hillel. The Debate Over Jewish LawShow me what laws you're talking about specifically. Going by the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law doesn't void or nullify the law.

quote:

---

It was at Penticost when the Holy Spirit decended, entering the believer's body and being/heart/soul, awaiting that event, as Jesus had instructed. The intent of the law came into their being via the baptism of the Holy Ghost, i.e. being born from above/again.

---

quote:

---

Paul said somewhere, If any man be in Christ Jesus, he becomes a new creature/creation; old things have passed away; behold all things have become new. In other words, the sinful life passes away and one begins (I say begins) to be a better person as one grows from a babe in Christ to become a mature practicing believer, growing as one applies one's life to the Biblical principles.

---

That still doesn't nullify or void the OT laws. If the intent came into their being then they should have no problem following the OT laws.Changing one's behavior also doesn't nullify or void the OT laws. The person changed, not the OT laws.

quote:

---

Christianity began as a cult movement within Judaism. Jesus was a Jew. His direct followers were Jews. The whole concept of what Jesus was was entirely entrenched in a Jewish world view. He was the Messiah who was resurrected after being executed during the Passover; he offered spiritual reinterpretations of the Law; and so the list goes on.

​

The Jesus Movement was a Jewish movement for Jews. The new movement didn't become Christianity until it started to become populated with non-Jews. The abandonment of the necessity for keeping certain parts of the Law was part of the general movement away from the Jewish Jesus Movement to a more universal Christianity.

​

Did this not happen?

---

Show some support. I've shown you the Jewish half of Christianity died out. The Jewish half followed the laws. The Non-Jewish half couldn't abandon what they didn't have.I already said Christianity went to the Gentiles. Message 5

quote:

---

But the Jewish Christian cult did abandon much of the Law.

​

Peter and Paul are two great examples.

---

Show us that Paul or Peter followed the OT Laws any less than other Jews or Jewish Christians of the time.

quote:

---

They ate with non Jews, ate unclean foods.

---

Scripture please!

Associating with Non-Jews is not part of the OT Laws. Message 13

Support please!Plates could be washed other than clay. Leviticus 11

quote:

---

Some plates could be washed. But unless done by someone who understands the requirements it is not Kosher. And of course, any clay pot where an unclean critter has touched and anything that touches or is in such an unclean pot is unclean. That also applies to how food was prepared and stored, cooked, handled, what ingredients are included.

---

It may have been difficult to eat with Gentiles or to visit one, but it wasn't forbidden and since Shammai felt it necessary to make several decrees to keep Jews and Gentiles separated, the people must have overcome the difficulty. Message 36

quote:

---

The support is common sense. The Laws were detailed, often arbitrary, sometimes contradictory and whether the source was Biblical, or Rabbinical or simply custom, complex and obscure.

​

When you entered a non-Jewish hose there was simply no way to know the history of the food offered.

---

The support for your argument is not common sense because the Laws were detailed, often arbitrary, sometimes contradictory, complex and obscure. There were several sects with their interpretations of the OT Laws and at least two schools of thought.You stated in Message 30, that But you haven't shown us that Paul or Peter followed the OT Laws any less than other Jews or Jewish Christians of their time.There were Hellenistic Jews before Jesus came. These Jews had largely abandoned much of the Torah in order to be "more accepted" in the Greek/Roman culture where they lived. Paul claimed to be a Pharisee. Acts 23:6My position is that at the time of Jesus, Paul, and Peter; the OT Laws had no legal or binding force on Gentiles, Christian or otherwise. They had nothing to abandon. I don't see that Jewish Christians abandoned any OT Laws because of Jesus or Paul.I don't see that Paul or Peter followed the OT Laws any less than the various Diaspora Jews of their time.

quote:

---

However both Peter and Paul were of sects that definitely considered keeping Kosher as required and yet they both changed their position. They dropped keeping Kosher as a requirement.

​

You may not see it but it really is that simple.

---

Requirement for what?You haven't shown that Paul and Peter didn't follow the Jewish dietary laws. Excerpt from: How People Lived In The Bible 2002

IMO, it became more complicated when the leading Jews figured perfect adherence to the laws would get them their nation and temple back. They developed the fence, which was extreme in some cases.Before that I don't feel they were any more complicated than any other nation's laws.