M
magisterfaust
Guest
Why did christ “abolish” the old testament on his death and resurrection?? I shall stop there as it will appear that I am baiting for an arguement:thumbsup:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
ckempston
Guest
I was under the impression that he fulfilled it, not that he abolished it.
T
thistle
Guest
He didn’t abolish anything. He fulfilled the prophecies and laws of the OT, this being confirmed by Moses and Elijah appearing with him at the Transfiguration.Why did christ “abolish” the old testament on his death and resurrection?? I shall stop there as it will appear that I am baiting for an arguement:thumbsup:
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Jesus fulfilled and abolished the old Law because its reason for existence (to point to the Messiah) had been fulfilled.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis: "29. **And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; **then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis: "29. **And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; **then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.”
S
scylla
Guest
The Old Testament was a preparation for the New. So everything leading up to the New Testament was preparation for the New.Why did christ “abolish” the old testament on his death and resurrection?? I shall stop there as it will appear that I am baiting for an arguement:thumbsup:
Here is an example. Christians do not practice religious circumcision as it has been replaced with Baptism. So religious circumcision has been effectively abolished but also fulfilled because we still do it in a different way. We do not do the act but we do the same sort of thing. The person is given to God and accepted as part of God’s family in a new way. A whole new way compared to the Old Testament way of being incorporated into God’s family.
In the same way the Old Testament was abolished but not forgotten but fulfilled.
God Bless
Scylla
S
Sepharad
Guest
I have a question: If the Jewish Covenant (“Old Testament”) was abolished (chas’vesholom) in favor of the Christian testament, does that mean Christians do not believe they need to follow anything contained in the “Old Testament”?
And if the response is that they only need to follow from the “Old Testament” what is reiterated in the Christian testament, then why are Christians against incest?
Incest is condemned only in the “Old Testament”, it is not mentioned in the Christian testament.
And if the response is that they only need to follow from the “Old Testament” what is reiterated in the Christian testament, then why are Christians against incest?
Incest is condemned only in the “Old Testament”, it is not mentioned in the Christian testament.
C
ckempston
Guest
You can believe Pius if you like. I prefer Jesus:Jesus fulfilled and abolished the old Law because its reason for existence (to point to the Messiah) had been fulfilled.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis: "
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
S
Sepharad
Guest
Post #7 in this thread might interest you.You can believe Pius if you like. I prefer Jesus:
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=251804
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
That’s a good question. The answer is no. Not everything contained in the Old Testament was abrogated. The precepts of the moral law that are part of the natural law, which were contained in the Old Covenant, remained in tact. What was abrogated was the Divine positive law that was over and above the moral law. For example, the ceremonies of the old law and the dietary restrictions are no longer in force. These are not part of the natural law, but were added via the Divine positive law (revelation).I have a question: If the Jewish Covenant (“Old Testament”) was abolished (chas’vesholom) in favor of the Christian testament, does that mean Christians do not believe they need to follow anything contained in the “Old Testament”?
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Matthew 5: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled”.You can believe Pius if you like. I prefer Jesus:
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until what? _______. What did Jesus come to do with respect to the law? __________
Put the two together and tell me what you get.
C
ckempston
Guest
Well, it’s not a big mystery since he answers his question in the passage: till heaven and earth pass.Matthew 5: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled”.
Not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until what? _______. What did Jesus come to do with respect to the law? __________
Put the two together and tell me what you get.
They haven’t.
M
magisterfaust
Guest
For all the “baiting” that one has been accused of… I say Thank you kindly for your time and responses:thumbsup:
D
Dauphin
Guest
Christ is the Law - the Incarnate Word.
J
japhy
Guest
The Letter to the Hebrews (8:6-13) says that the Old Covenant was becoming obsolete because of the New Covenant:
[6] But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. [8] For he finds fault with them when he says:
“The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; [9] not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. [10] This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [11] And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,’ for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest. [12] For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
[13] In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
[6] But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. [8] For he finds fault with them when he says:
“The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; [9] not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. [10] This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [11] And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,’ for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest. [12] For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
[13] In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
S
scylla
Guest
We Catholics always look to Jesus first. Which is why we are the only ones who uphold celibacy and the fact that sin is evil and God is perfectly good.You can believe Pius if you like. I prefer Jesus:
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
As for Pius we use commentary such as the one posted to defend the truth of Christ, never to contradict.
One thing we must understand is that Jesus must be understood correctly as divisions and misunderstandings lead to the hundreds of interpretations based upon men.
(if you would like to discuss Catholicism feel free to PM me as it seems you have a poor view of Catholicism, maybe based upon bad Catholics or a wayward pastor)
In Christ
Scylla
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Not one jot or tittle of the law will pass until all be fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the law. It has now been fulfilled, and therefore it has passed.Well, it’s not a big mystery since he answers his question in the passage: till heaven and earth pass.
They haven’t.
Matthew 5: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled”.
Regarding the part about heaven and earth not passing. What he means is, sooner would heaven and earth pass away than one jot or tittle of the law would pass “till all be fulfilled”. In other words, there is no way one jot or tittle will pass from the law, until all be fulfilled, which is what Jesus did
That’s why the book of Hebews says “he taketh away the first [covenant] that he may establish the second” (Hebrews 10:9)
J
japhy
Guest
B as in “bin”, G as in “go”.That’s why the book of Hebews says “he taketh away the first [covenant] that he may establish the second” (Hebrews 10:9)
K
KingAlfred
Guest
Read the stories of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. The prospect of anyone interpretting them literally and giving them a ‘thumb’s up’ is scary. I confronted some Fundies with many specific, lurid passages in that vain from the OT, and man did they ever go ballistic on me. It was as though they had never read them, despite their active worship of the Bible. Either that, or they were trying to ignore them. Spooky business.Why did christ “abolish” the old testament on his death and resurrection?? I shall stop there as it will appear that I am baiting for an arguement:thumbsup:
C
ckempston
Guest
Catholics are the only ones to believe that? Wow, that’s amazing that you think that. I know men and women who are celibate, who are not Catholic. I’m personally doing my job to continue the human race, but that’s because I don’t have Paul’s “gift.” And in my family, we certainly believe that sin is evil and God is perfectly good. If you believe that Catholics are the only ones who believe this, you must live a very sheltered life.We Catholics always look to Jesus first. Which is why we are the only ones who uphold celibacy and the fact that sin is evil and God is perfectly good.
I’m sorry, but Catholics have been contradicting themselves and the Bible for two thousand years.As for Pius we use commentary such as the one posted to defend the truth of Christ, never to contradict.
Agreed.One thing we must understand is that Jesus must be understood correctly as divisions and misunderstandings lead to the hundreds of interpretations based upon men.
I appreciate the offer, but I think I know enough about Catholicism to maintain my reasonable position that they are wrong in many areas. I wouldn’t call it a poor view; I’d call it a realistic view. You would not likely ever convince me, for instance, that “Veneration” of icons is OK, or that it’s OK to ask a “Saint” to “intercede” for me. These, and many other Catholic doctrines are directly contradicted by plainly worded passages of scripture. No amount of appealing to church authority, which is all you could do, would convince me that these things are God’s will.(if you would like to discuss Catholicism feel free to PM me as it seems you have a poor view of Catholicism, maybe based upon bad Catholics or a wayward pastor)
In Christ
Scylla
J
japhy
Guest
Can you explain what you find unbiblical about the intercession of saints? I’d really like to know.You would not likely ever convince me … that it’s OK to ask a “Saint” to “intercede” for me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.