patch notes, yes. good analogy

uhhh

@4SidedTriangle he openly rebuked the law-giving institution of the temple

Do remember that https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm argues otherwise, that it *does* mean quite something.

something something along the lines of

old hebrew customs, not all OT

"abandon old tradition, u are saved"

Also

and recall

as in specific rituals and whatnot

that not all actions taken in the OT were considered good actions

^^^^^

What are differences between "old Hebrew tradition" and "old Testament"? Both are old. And both are Hebrew.

@UnfilteredGarbage then the argument becomes what is the temple is it the people or the building or the concept and ideal

hence why a lot of "protagonists" in the OT ended up getting their shit kicked in later for their stupid shit

Most of the OT are traditions of the Jewish tribes, which don't apply to Christian gentiles, since they aren't of the "chosen people" anyways

circumcision for an ez example

the so called "christians" then are not the same Christians now as Christianity has been nooterd. after the invasion of islam and the sacking of the last great chrisitan city.

The most Jesus could have meant is distance from those parts of Hebrew tradition **NOT WRITTEN INTO OT**.

no

Hence all stoning is agreed by Jesus.

he said circumcision

Can we at least all agree that circumcision is barbaric and should be made illegal.

no

you are literally

strawmanning

so heavily

you are creating a false narrative

@Coolitic https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

to push a close-minded point

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Nothing is scared

Destroy the cock

and?

i agree circumcision is atrocious at best

And yet Jesusphiles want to do it.

Again christians of that time period are not the same christians now.

no

yes

That, and they usually think Catholics are Christian instead of heretics.

wasn't that due to the puritan movement though?