So then animal sacrifice is meant to be continued by Christians? The “did not come to abolish but fulfill” thing is really an explanation for abolishment. He didn’t destroy the law but completed it, so it’s done. And by law we basically mean Leviticus. So yes, Leviticus pretty much is irrelevant. By your argument and the argument embedded in OPs post Christians should still be stoning women and not eating pork.
How can you know which chapter of Matthew starts the sermon on the mount and not know pretty much the most core concept in Christian theology? Like that is almost the whole central point of Jesus is that he abolished the law by fulfilling it. That and salvation. That’s like the two things.
So then animal sacrifice is meant to be continued by Christians? The “did not come to abolish but fulfill” thing is really an explanation for abolishment. He didn’t destroy the law but completed it, so it’s done. And by law we basically mean Leviticus. So yes, Leviticus pretty much is irrelevant. By your argument and the argument embedded in OPs post Christians should still be stoning women and not eating pork.
How can you know which chapter of Matthew starts the sermon on the mount and not know pretty much the most core concept in Christian theology? Like that is almost the whole central point of Jesus is that he abolished the law by fulfilling it. That and salvation. That’s like the two things.