(and the only relevant sects are Catholicism and Orthodoxy)

you know, like, it's not just sola fide, tradition plays a role too, which they were granted the permission to do

and also jesus made a new covenant with humanity so many of the old commands were made obsolete.

it's still really useful to understand judaism and the culture to get deeper in it but it's def. not essential

@WHAT Can you specify which old commandments were made obsolete?

Or where Jesus made this new covenant with humanity that bypasses Jewish law?

literally all over the new testament

Then it should be easy to cite.

ill just link a page with all of it that i found

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm

"The teachings of Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem, and other New Testament teachings (John 1:16-17, Acts 13:39, Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15) make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, animal sacrifices, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc."

and I'm no biblical scholar, heck, I'm agnostic, and I bet there are certain rules that are still followed and some that aren't. But the best blanket statement is that Jesus released people from the old law

Well, I mean, aside from the fact that it's in the bible that no prophet should ever take away, nor add to the commandment... It's incredibly likely that a lot of this is poorly translated.

I mean, I can give examples of poor translations within the new testament.

And I don't just mean 'Decearing Egg Preparation' levels of poor translation.

I mean things that weren't understood at the time that translations were made.

For instance, Matthew 26:34 refers to a rooster in the NIV.

Concerning Peter's denial of Jesus, he says that he will disown Jesus three times before the rooster crows.

In the area where this biblical event occurs, there would historically not be any fowl kept there. No roosters would be within range to be heard.

that's such a lame point, I mean, seriously

It's really not, though.

It's an example of the flaws in translation.

nobody has said anything about taht

that

What that line is actually referring to is the temple crier, because the words in their original translations are the same.

literally, I can't find anyone talking about what you're saying

i did just find what you are saying

and the word literally also translates to man

so it would be, if anything, a failure in modern translation.

And yet, in any cinematic retelling of the event

You find Peter deny Jesus three times, and then a rooster crows.

a failure which is completely inconsequential because no doctrine lies on the fact of whether a rooster crowed or not

It's funny how these things work themselves into perpetuation.

6 But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares 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 bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares 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, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all 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 makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
-Hebrews 8: 6-13

I was about to post that @Deller

It is actually in the Bible that Christians are not to be beheld to the old covenants with God, and that we were forming a New Covenant with Christ

yup

Whether you want to take it as fact, translation error, or however you want to interpret it is up to you, but it is there

Jesus established this New Covenant during the last supper when he served the first Eucharist

I went through 12 years of the catholic school system where religious studies were weighed equally with Math, Science, and History. I may not like organized religion, but I very much understand it.

Well, I'll concede that this is past my understanding, and past my curfew to actually do further research (work in 5 hours)