True

>implying Christians have to follow anything in the OT

Shows how much you know.

Oh god, don't tell me you are actually one of those retards who believes that Jesus did away with or "fixed" the old testament. In fact, the opposite is true. He said multiple times that the "law" (the rules laid out in the OT) must be followed "until all things have taken place."

examples of him saying this or similar things can be found in
Matthew 5:18-19
Luke 16:17
Matthew 5:17
John7:19

it looks like a protestant trying to make a meme. the catholic version would just have hell on the reality side. the cafeteria catholic reality would have hell + 2 church visits per year becuase grandma won't leave the house to us otherwise. daily reminder you're unclean.

dude he straight up said you don't have to wash your hands before eating any more because he's on earth doing gods work and he's gotta have a sammich now and then.

ok it wasn't a sandwich, but yeah he revoked some weirdly specific shit for the present if he only meant to get rid of that one until "things are ready"

Jesus didn't get rid of the Law, but he did fulfill it. He brought it to a completion and replaced it with the new Law, the New Covenant.

And, yes, this does in fact mean that Christians are now the Chosen People, replacing the Jews.

>rebuke the protest pharisee
>he's probably going to start talking about rebirthing soon
sorry my love i've got to go return to some videotapes

Asatru > (((servants of Loki))) > Christians

The opposite is not true. Everything in Leviticus that people don't follow anymore was corrected in the NT.

>a lot of time excluding the more archaic rules in Leviticus
The New Testament explicitly lays out why those don't apply any more. Come on dude, I'm a fedora tipper and I know this stuff.

It does exactly the opposite. Ya know the whole I will not add or remove a single word from the law thing.

The parts that he changes were never part of the Law in the first place.

Why would God allow them to even be included in the Bible to begin with if they are useless?

Further, what kind of intelligent God would allow the very Bible that his followers base their entire belief system on to include entire books of useless laws that would just end up confusing people like you and me and cause stupid arguments like this?

>tfw too intelligent for God
If they let me be God I would make sure none of this would be an issue. Seriously, who does this kind of shit? Is He some sort of beginner god or something? Is this his first universe? He's changing course all the time, having to do over stuff that was ambiguous and contradictory to begin with--and for what? Look at the world today: what a mess. Can He do anything right or do we have to teach Him everything?

Divine positive law and divine eternal law, yes.

The word used to mean fulfil means to complete. He didn't replace the ot law, he just completed it.

>muh arbitrary distinctions of laws centuries after the Bible is written and you have to follow the parts of the law but not these ones
Fuvk you and fuck aquinas

that's because of freedom of conscience

>implying God made the Bible

The Bible is a man-made collection of divinely inspired texts.

>gentiles
>chosen people
>ever
Lmao
You got a simple law that's better for your simple brains, but make no mistake, the chosen are who they've always been. Unless you're saying God makes mistakes. In who he chooses?

That user didn't say God made the Bible and your post only refutes the point you made up in your head

Faith should be in Jesus Christ, that's all that matters.
He fulfilled the Old Testament. If He did not, He failed His mission.
>Matthew 5:18-19
One verse prior, Matt 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".
Then, in the rest of Matt 5, Jesus explains how the Law of just a particular set of rules used to represent God's real moral law, which extends the principles far beyond those written law of the OT (which is entirely "contained" in the new Great Commandments, Mark 12:30-32) but replaces the specific legalism.
>Luke 16:17
Again, one verse prior: "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it"
>Matthew 5:17
Says the opposite of what you claim.
>John7:19
At this point Jesus is preaching to a crowd in the temple (John 7:14). He says "Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law." (John 7:19). Of course they don't have the benefit of the law's fulfillment yet, Jesus is yet to die and rise again, and He's speaking to them about them keeping the law up until this point in their lives in which all they had was the law, not during the few minutes He'd been preaching to them. In fact, here he highlights the purpose of the old law: it shows people's futility in fighting sin. We are now saved only through God's grace as it would be impossible to be sinless and achieve salvation ourselves.

>mfw this post

Quite possibly the most autistic post I have seen on this website

>Faith should be in Jesus Christ

How do you explain that most Christians would spit in your face if you told them that they have to give away all of their wealth to the poor, never defend themselves and not judge anyone? These are literally the things which a devout American Republican is most against.

Christians that do that have failed to be Christians.

>The word used to mean fulfil means to complete. He didn't replace the ot law, he just completed it.
The purpose of the law was to
>Clarify the difference between God and man
>to produce Jesus Christ
>to guide people to act like Christ
Jews took it as a series of algorithms, missing the point.

They're probably spitting in your face because your spouting off heresy. Read your catechism.

>You are of your father the devil. He was a murderer and a liar from the beginning and the father of it.
>If you were from Abraham you would do as Abraham; this you do not.
Christ delegitimizes the blood worship of jews.

So you do admit that there are some (the majority actually, I'd argue) people who call themselves Christian and yet don't follow the teachings of the Bible at all? That's exactly what OP was saying.

Why would it be impossible for us to be sinless and achieve salvation ourselves?

>Why would God allow them to even be included in the Bible to begin with if they are useless?
They aren't useless. The law, prophets, and psalms all point towards Jesus. Not just the content of the books but the laws themselves aren't completely separate from the Great Commandment because they are a particular manifestation of them. No longer a law in that sense, but demonstration of a principle.
Gal 3:28-29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
Also see Romans 11 about the olive tree.
Even is one dismisses NT teachings as false, it's worth pointing out it implies nowhere that God makes mistakes.

You miss the point in all that you try to preach. Christ did not tell everyone to sell all their property and give it to the poor. The important part is to have Christ as the highest value. No competition allowed.

>not being able to relinquish material attachments so you can help people, as christ would do
>having christ as the highest value and emulating him maximally

>if you were from God you would do as God do; you do not
Wow. Great logic jesus I'm proud of you

This image is too true when it comes to Catholicism. I almost became a Catholic, then during an RCIA class the topic of sexuality came up and it turned into a GLAAD struggle session encouraged by the priest. At that point I fucked off and abandoned Catholicism forever. Those people are no more serious than Protestants.

Aren't you the user that admitted that those kind of people are failed Christians? Have you changed your mind?

And no, Christ did not tell everyone to sell their property and give it to the poor, but I am pretty sure he would have been against the lack of universal healthcare because of >muh why should I pay for other people's well-being.

One solution : SSPX
google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=17uFqmlu34b50_lR0i75L3gizEa4&hl=fr&ll=41.29762226684334,-31.806324942600412&z=4
if you're in Europe,
sspx.org/en/community/priories
if you're in America.

He didn't deny the blood connection. He denies the spiritual connection. Obviously if man was to be divine in nature, man would act accordingly. These are Virtues, beauty, truth, Agape, life, creation. Each to the best of their ability and beyond.

Not that guy. He was wrong.

Christ kind of did though because materialistic attachments get in the way of worshipping god, and if you can't sacrifice those to get closer to god, you're a failed Christian

more like

>this is your average christcuck

The priest who taught my RCIA class went out of his way to defend Humanae Vitae, and this was at a fairly normie Novus Ordo parish. The Catholic Church is full of internal idealogical conflicts at the moment, and one parish/diocese can differ from another fairly significantly. Liberal Catholicism is dying out just like Mainline Protestantism is, though.

The one variable is the Catholic school system. Alot of upper-middle class families in the US send their kids to Catholic school not because they are practicing Catholics, but because they live in a school district with "bad schools" and sending their kids to private school is easier than moving. As a result, Catholic schools have an incentive not to rock the boat and defend church teaching in order to keep enrollment up and tuition dollars coming in.

Old Covenant (Jew) laws do not apply to non-Jews.

Those who follow Christ do not have to follow those laws because Christ fulfills them in-stead.
God made no mistake, He simply chose you as the bridge to Christ.

We're all a slave to something.

Giving away wealth today does nothing to help. Christians absolutely can defend themselves, and can judge others. What they cannot do is begin an offensive or be a hypocrite.

Christianity is inherently anti-state. Jesus is Lord, there are none before Him.

>Christians absolutely can defend themselves
Too bad they can't defend the Bible.

It doesn't need to be defended. Silverfish are a bigger threat to the Bible than you.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's

>reddit tries to "read" the bible

Nothing is Caesar's.

>never defend themselves
Jesus wasn't like that

You can keep posting this Jew propaganda, no ones buying it

That answer didn't fare so well. You lost your temple and your religion. You were left with a money making algorithm.

>Old Testament

>NEW Testament

I'm not Jewish.

hello, judaizer. you show up in every single thread about christianity, without fail. will you ever end your crusade of retardation?

yup

Circumcision puts you under the yoke of slavery, also known as 'the law'. It was fulfilled, unnecessary. Baptism and circumcision of the heart have taken its place. Logos, the ascent of man.

>circumcision of the heart

That has to hurt