From Acts ch. 10
IOW, by dying, Jesus has cleansed those things that the OT says are unclean. In the same way, one can speak “through” him to God, without sacrifices.
I answered this from the Jewish perspective in these forums almost four years ago. Link.
Zev Steinhardt
No one has overturned these laws for Jews. They are all still “on the books” today.
However, many laws can only be fulfilled under certain conditions and, absent those conditions, they cannot be fulfilled. The most obvious example of this is the sacrificial order. Sacrifices can only be offered at the Temple in Jerusalem. Since the Temple does not exist, then sacrifices cannot be brought. But the accompanying laws that surround the sacrifical order are still in effect. For example, a consecrated animal cannot be used for any purpose, but must be sacrificed on the Altar. If someone were to consecrate an animal today, the consecration would take effect. It would be forbidden to use that animal for labor, drink it’s milk, use it’s wool, etc.
Other laws are on the books but cannot be fulfilled for other reasons. For example, there is a Talmudic dictum called dina d’malchusa dina (The law of the land is the law). This means that (where it does not conflict with Torah laws), one must follow the laws of the land in which s/he lives. So, for example, although slavery is permitted under Torah law, if one lives in an area where slavery is outlawed (such as in most of the world today), then a Jew cannot own a slave.
So, it’s not a matter of someone overturning the Biblical Laws (as far as Jews are concerned), it’s a matter of “can they be fulfilled in the current conditions.”
Zev Steinhardt
Well, I’m not a literalist or a fundamentalist, but I take Paul’s letters as a good expression of what I believe about Christianity. This includes only the letters actually written by Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philemon, and Philippians) and generally only the bits that are more universal than the bits of his advice that were written assuming the Parousia was near (such as the bits about not marrying in 1 Corinthians). For example, I see no reason why Christians should not be equal in the Church and I agree with Paul’s ideas of justification as he outlined in Romans.
It’s not snarky at all - it’s a very reasonable request. But I’m afraid I can’t comply, since what I rely on is, in fact, Paul’s interpretation, which I regard as divinely inspired.
As an analogy, I claim that the law in Virginia prohibits forgery of checks. You ask for a cite, and I direct you to the web site publishing Virginia law. “Not some interpretation by the webmaster of some web page,” you retort. “I want the actual law signed by the legislators and the governor!”
Now, where that analogy undoubtedly fails in your mind is that there are numerous indicia of reliability associated with a web page bearing a state.va.us address, as well as the natural reasoning that were the postings there not reflective of the actual law, they would be noticed and changed, since we know - or reasonably assume - that the actual people responsible for passing laws have an interest in seeing those laws accurately reported.
On the other hand, you think. we have no such guarantees in Paul’s case, since the “supervision” was supernatural rather than direct.
I acknowledge that weakness in the argument, of course. I merely point out that I find it compelling; I freely acknowledge that there is insufficent evidence to compel you to reach the same conclusion.
I never made the claim that any competent authority had overturned them for Jews; my comment purported to give the view of many modern-day Christians, a distinction I made in the line immediately following the one you chose to quote.
I believe Zev has answered this comprehensively in the link he provided; I’ll only point out the Talmudic principle enunciated by Shmuel of dina de’malchutah dina, which stands for the general proposition that the civil law of the land is halakhically the law Jews must follow. This prohibits the slaves, the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, and so forth.
- Rick
Actually, you said that it was the view of many modern-day Christians, but in the previous post and this one you made an analogy to a law that had been overturned for everyone. The OP isn’t limited to Christianity. Why did you respond with an analogy that only works if it were?
Minor quibble:
The reason that we don’t execute Sabbath-violators today has nothing to do with dina d’malchusa dina. Since there is a positive commandment to properly administer the death penalty (where appropriate, of course), this would not be overridden by dina d’malchusa dina.
The reason we don’t execute Sabbath-violators today is because in order to try capital cases, there must be a functioning Sanhedrin in the lishchas hagazis (Chamber of Hewn Stone) on the Temple Mount. Since there is no Sanhedrin anymore, nor any Chamber of Hewn Stone, nor anyone today capable of serving on such a Sanhedrin even if the Temple did exist, we therefore cannot try capital cases.
Zev Steinhardt
But I would find a website that publishes Virginia legal code a perfectly acceptable reference. Not one that publishes “interpretation,” even by (quick Googling) Chief Justice Hassell, but the real Virginia Commonwealth Code, as found here:
(Dear God, I love Google!) I would not be asking for the actual piece of paper signed by Governor Battle in 1950 (Have I mentioned that my dad worked for Battle’s law firm?) and here I a not asking for a piece of papyrus saying,
but a link to where in the NT He says it.
As for Paul’s “divine inspiration,” you are right that we won’t get very far in a discussion because I have long had problems with Paul. 
Actually, I posted a law that applied to Virginians only. Minnesotans wishing to marry outisde of their race were free to do so, unencumbered by Virginia’s law. In this respect, I believe my analogy was solid.
- Rick
I absolutely acknowledge the independent and adequate grounds of lack of a Sanhedrin for the death penalty problem, and I thank you for the correction.
I am not persuaded (yet) that dina de’malchutah dina is not applicable. While I am by no means an expert on the subject, I seem to recall that the rule’s breadth is a matter of some dispute. I refer you to the commentary of R. Shlomo ben Aderet (Rashba) as reported by Beit Yosef Tur-Hoshen (Mishpat 338):
I am, however, eager to learn of the rebuttal to this point, assuming it is more than a mere pilpul. 
- Rick
But by what means are you assured that someone has not hacked into the web server and replaced the actual code with the variant you quoted above? Web servers are notorious for such events, after all.
My point was merely that for any authoritive source, we accpt certain indicia of reliability as being sufficient to guarantee trustworthiness. I contend that Paul’s interpretation was, in general, divinely inspired, and thus trustworthy-- while I acknowledge that this view is not universally held.
That was a literal LOL for me! Thanks for the snicker!
I’m afraid that you are confusing two separate and completely unrelated issues here.
The subject that we were dealing with is the positive precept to carry out justice. This includes giving the appropriate punishments in the appropriate circumstances for the appropriate violation of Biblical Laws.
The Rashba and the Tur deal with a completely separate issue. The issue there is with regard to the concept of a moser (someone who gives over Jews to gentile authorities). Since, for the vast majority of history, it was assumed that Jews could not receive justice in gentile courtroom merely because of the fact that they were Jews (which still does apply in parts of the world today), it was forbidden to hand Jews over to the authorities for what would probably amount to a summary execution. The debate there is whether or not, in a place where there is reasonable certainty that the laws of the land will be fairly applied, whether or not the prohibition of handing Jews over to the government still applies. But it has nothing to do with actively setting up Jewish courts of Justice. Both sides of that argument will agree that we do not now have the right to execute Sabbath violators because of the lack of a Sanhedrin.
Zev Steinhardt
There’s enough of a pattern of states illegalizing check forgery that the thought that Virginia would be an exception would not cross my mind and cause me to suspect fraud. But it wasn’t that check forgery was not only accepted but insisted upon prior to 1950; I assume there was a similar statute in force prior to that. (In other words, maybe this wasn’t the best choice to support your argument)
Agreed. There is a pont where folks have to quit bickering and deal the cards.
[/QUOTE]
I contend that Paul’s interpretation was, in general, divinely inspired, and thus trustworthy-- while I acknowledge that this view is not universally held.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as a current Lutheran (though my qualifications to call myself one are slim) and former Catholic, my problems with Paul (the church I attend was even named after him) lead me to bite my tongue on occasion.
As I also agree that the lack of a Sanhedrin is sufficient.
Bu-ut, now I ask whether, absent that reason, the civil law preventing “amateur” - that is, Jewish as opposed to secular - trials and administration of the death penalty overrides Jewish law and is halachically binding.
There is no question that dina de’malchutah dina is limited. If it were not so, civil law could eviscerate Jewish law and nullify Torah itself (Resp. Rashba, VI, 254.) But the question is: does dina de’malchutah dina forbid the specific case of a Jewish court imposing a death sentence in and of itself, without regard to the lack of a Sanhedrin?
Much commentary exists that concedes to civil government the right to rule on matters of public safety and civil bahavior. (Resp. Rashba II:356; Rashba to Gittin 10a; Ran to Gittin 10a; Ramban to Baba Batra 55a). If the civil government does not permit the death penalty at all, for example, it may enforce this rule as it does other civil rules - e.g. Resp. Avnei NezerYoreh De’ah, no. 312.
But, as you say, an act of mesirah may be stopped, even by killing the moser if absolutely necessary. (Hil. Hovel uMazik 8:10-11.) This suggests a subornation of dina de’malchutah dina to the needs of the community. (Notwithstanding the Arukh ha-Shulhan commentary which you allude to above concerning the justice a Jew may expect to receive in a secular court, Hoshen Mishpat 388:7).
Nowhere can I find a commentary that is directly on point to this question. I used to subscribe to a halachic mailing list, back in the days of listservs, and I wish I had that resource available now.
- Rick
I always try to stay at least three car lengths behind it.
I’m going to bump this so that those keeping the Sabbath, and thus unable to use computers today, are reminded of the discussion…
This is a minor point.
It’s worth pointing out that the Hebrew word for slavery (avdut) is the same as the Hebrew word for servitude, and the connotations of this “avdut” are very different than the way slavery is usually perceived in America today.
In the morning Jewish blessings, when men thank G-d for not making them an “eved” (same root word as avdut), there is an alternate text that women can use if they wish, in which they thank G-d for not making them a “shifchah”, or servant girl/maid. In other words, “eved” can mean both slave AND something equivalent to maid.
Many religious people will point out that such harsh punishments and other actions are not in accord with today’s religion.
They will not add that the changes almost always came from outside pressure by secularists. There is little pressure to change religious views from within.