I'm surprised I didn't see this comment earlier, but I'd like to respond, if I may. Jesus says, "I did not come to abolish the old law, but to fulfill it.". We can take this at, relatively, face value and look at Jesus' life and works and see it as a perfect representation of G-d's plan.

The abolishment of the old law is a "new" concept. It is formed from Paul's letters and interpreting them in such a way that is self-referential. In that, modern theologians use it to justify itself. In the research community, this is a big no-no, as I'm sure you can understand. The old laws specifically, are so nuanced and historical based, that it's a joy to research!

E.g. Eating pork. This is something that is debated currently. Is the law there to prevent people from getting sick, as handling pork in those times was ripe for disease? (You would end up with more meat than you could eat quickly enough). Or was it for health reasons? But why then, was there so much pork eaten in the BCE?There's so much interpretation that isn't explicitly said, that it's fun to delve into. This is also an example of contradiction, using historical analysis and anthropology research.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

According to Jesus none of the old laws changed. He was very clear on that.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

He also strongly implied that a not-insignificant part of the old “law” were cultural traditions and compromises, rather than directives from god.

First see, this.
Matthew 22:34-40

Then this.
Mark 7:1-13

And then this.
Matthew 19:3-8

He was very clear that what he laid out in Matthew 22:34-40 was the summary of all law, and that any and all others must be derived from that. If they do not, it is just a tradition.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

That depends on how literal ome takes the Bible. Some of that is highly contested depending on what domination you're in.