Objectively, on the issue of repealing the Old Testament, let us see what we found in support of this thesis in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 15:2: “It is by the gospel that you will be saved, provided that you keep it as I told you; otherwise, you will have believed in vain.” (Our italics)

Ephesians 1:13: "In Christ you too have heard the word of truth, the Gospel that saves you." (Our italics)

Paul makes it clear that it is by the Gospel that we will be saved; in other words, he doesn't accept the Old Testament as something we can save ourselves with.

Hebrews 7:18-19: “Therefore, on the one hand, the former ordinance is revoked, because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law has never perfected anything) and, on the other hand, a superior hope is introduced, through which we come to God. And since it is not without taking an oath (for those without an oath are made priests, but this one with an oath, to Him who told him: The Lord hath sworn, and shall not repent; thou art a priest forever); for this very reason Jesus has become guarantor of a superior covenant.” (Our italics)

Hebrews 8:6-8:13: “Now, in fact, Jesus obtained a ministry all the more excellent, as he is also a mediator of a superior covenant instituted on the basis of superior promises. For, if that first alliance had been faultless, there would by no means have been a place being sought for the second. And indeed, rebuking them, He says: Behold, the days are coming, saith the Lord, and I will make a New covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.​​When He says New, he makes the first out of date. Well, what becomes old-fashioned and aged is about to disappear.” (Our italics)

Hebrews 10:9: “[…] in this way, Christ suppresses the first service to establish the second”. (Our italics)

Whether until now there could still be any small shadow of doubt has now been definitively dispelled by these accounts of the letter to the Hebrews. We could even say: “he who has ears should listen”, but we will say those who have eyes see: the previous alliance is weak, useless and defective, while the new one is superior to it. As for “it is about to disappear”, it has not disappeared yet because of the insistence of some who want, at all costs, to keep alive the legislation of Moses contained in the Old Testament. Repeating: Because if that first alliance had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for the second.

We corroborate our idea with Ehrman:

I have already mentioned that this is the view presented in the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews, a book that attempts to show that the religion based on Jesus is superior to the religion of Judaism in every way. For the author of Hebrews, Jesus is superior to Moses, who gave the Law to the Jews (Heb 3); he is superior to Joshua, who conquered the promised land (Heb 3); he is superior to the priests who offer sacrifices in the temple (Heb 4-5); and, most strikingly, it is superior to the sacrifices themselves (Heb 9-10). […]. (ERMAN, 2008, p. 78, emphasis added)

Clear, then, is the question of Jesus being superior to Moses.

Mark 2:18-22: “As John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, they asked Him: 'Why are John's disciples and the Pharisees' disciples fasting and yours are not?' Jesus answered them: 'Would it be all right for those invited to a wedding to fast while the bridegroom is with them? While he is, it's not good. But a time will come when the husband will be taken from them. So yes, they will fast. No one sews a patch of new cloth on old clothing. Otherwise the new patch, because it shrinks, spoils the old clothes and the tear gets worse. Nobody puts new wine in old leather containers. Otherwise, the wine would burst the containers. The containers and the wine would be lost. For new wine, new containers!'.” (Our italics)

It would be the same as Jesus saying: If you stick to the teachings of Moses, you will not be able to bear or understand what I bring you now. Where was the talk about fasts? Isn't it in the Old Testament that both the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist took what they followed? Let us remember that “the Law and the Prophets were in force until John” (Luke 16:16). So, is it not clearer its revocation by Jesus? It just isn't for those who still insist on following Moses. It becomes clearer when we take from the constant footnote of the New Testament, Editions Loyola, the following: “Both the new cloth and the new wine are symbols of a new age (cf. Acts 10, 11; Heb 1, 11; Genesis 49, 11-12); Christians must be animated by a new spirit, incompatible with the old prescriptions of Judaism that are outdated” (p. 57, emphasis added)

There is an episode in the life of Jesus that led us to form a strong conviction that His teachings were superior to those of Moses. It is the passage in which John narrates, what is supposed to be, Jesus' first miracle. Despite having thought about it a lot, we still didn't have any explanation that would justify Jesus' attitude in turning water into wine, to get the guests drunk at the party He attended.

Let's see the episode:

John 2:1-11: “On the third day there was a wedding feast at Cana in Galilee, and Jesus' mother was there. Jesus had also been invited to this wedding, along with His disciples. He ran out of wine and Jesus' mother told Him, 'They don't have any more wine!' Jesus replied: 'Woman, what is there among us? My time has not yet come'. Jesus' mother told those serving, 'Do as He tells you.' There were six stone pots there, about a hundred liters each, which were used for the rites of purification of the Jews. Jesus told those serving: 'Fill these pots with water.' They filled the pots to the brim. Then Jesus said: 'Now take it out and take it to the master of the hall.' So they took it to the master of the hall. He tasted the water turned into wine, not knowing where it came from. Those who served were aware, as they were the ones who drew the water. Then the ward called the bridegroom and said: 'Everyone serves the good wine first, and when the guests are drunk they serve the worst. You, however, have kept the good wine until now.' It was in this way, at Cana in Galilee, that Jesus began His signs. He manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.”

But what is the true meaning of this passage? We will find it in what the person in charge of the party said to the groom: “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when the guests are drunk, they serve the worst. You, however, have kept the good wine until now”. Considering that, with this first public act, Jesus begins His mission, we can say that the “good wine kept until now” are the teachings of Jesus, superior to those previously received through Moses, who would symbolically be the worst quality wine, even because, and without wanting to belittle them, humanity at that time was not prepared to receive wine (teachings) of better quality, if we can express it that way.

Everything that we have said before about the teachings of Jesus, is valid to corroborate our opinion. But we can still support this: “In comparison with this immense glory, the splendor of the ministry of the old covenant is nothing more” (2 Corinthians 3:10) (emphasis added), and “That's the way it works the abrogation of the previous regulation due to its weakness and futility – the Law, in fact, did not achieve perfection – and a better hope of approaching God was introduced.

We conclude that Jesus was not restricted to just revoking the rituals and sacrifices as some think, for us, he went much further than that. We have also proved that we do not distort the Bible narratives to our convenience, of which we are so often accused. They are exactly what give us a solid basis for stating with absolute certainty that:

1 – The fulfillment of the law and of the prophets that Jesus refers to in the Gospel is only in relation to the prophecies contained in the Scriptures about Himself;

2 – That only has to be fulfilled the Law: Love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself.

3 – That it was never said to follow the whole Law, here understood as the whole Pentateuch.

It is very common to resort to the apologists of early Christianity to justify this or that point, however, when it is something contrary to the prevailing belief, they pass over it, as if they had not seen it. Take, for example, what we find in Justin of Rome.

The opinion of Justin of Rome (c. 100-165 CE), regarded as the best apologist of the second century, is quite clear in his debate with a Jewish sage, Trypho, who some scholars identify as the celebrated rabbi Tarphon, who died in 155, since Tryphon would be the Greek form of the Hebrew Tarphon. (JUSTINO, 1995, p. 107). From this debate, entitled Dialogue with Trypho, which lasted two days, we transcribe:

[…] However, we do not [trust] it through Moses or the Law, for in that case we would be doing what you are doing. Indeed, O Trypho, I read that there was to come a perfect law and a sovereign covenant in relation to others, which must now be kept by all men who desire the inheritance of God. The Law given on Mount Horeb is now old and belongs to you alone. The other, however, belongs to everyone. A law set against another law nullifies the first; an alliance made later also renders the former void. Christ was given to us as an eternal and definitive law and as a faithful covenant, after which there is no longer any law, nor order, nor commandment. […]. (JUSTINO, 1995, p. 127, emphasis added)

Clearer than this is wanting too much; is it not?

Now, we can answer the initial question: Was the Old Testament revoked by Jesus? Yes; without a shadow of a doubt. And that's why we don't feel obliged to fulfill anything in it, even to be coherent with what we think and for believing in this saying of Jesus: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one goes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Why did He stand as the path that leads to the Father and not Moses? It is because only His teachings should be followed.

This is the understanding we have arrived at. However, there is no way to force anyone to think like us. The only thing we ask is for people to stop clinging too much to the old teachings as if they were true. The Earth is no longer the center of the Universe, since man, realizing the ignorance of such a statement, finally accepted the voice of Science. Besides, many things were not changed by the religious summits, precisely so that they could preserve, at all costs, the dominion they have over the people and, also, so that they could maintain it at all costs. Even today we find those who seek to instill the validity of the teachings of the Old Testament not realizing that “you have broken with Christ, you who seek justice in the Law; you have fallen out of grace” (Galatians 5:4). We know that they do not do this out of ignorance, but out of cunning in order to dominate their “faithful” in order to obtain and maintain “power” and “money” on the basis of what we can call religious terrorism.

References:

Annotated Bible. Sao Paulo: Christian World, 1994.

Holy Bible, 68th ed. Sao Paulo: Ave-Maria, 1989.

Holy Bible, 8th ed. Petropolis, RJ: Voices, 1989.

New Testament, LEB. Sao Paulo: Loyola, 1984.

EHRMAN, B.D. The problem with God. Rio de Janeiro: Act, 2008.

EHRMAN, B.D. What did Jesus say? What did Jesus not say? Who changed the Bible and why. Sao Paulo: Prestige, 2006.

JUSTIN, Martyr, Saint Justin of Rome: I and II apologies: dialogue with Trypho. Sao Paulo: Paulus, 1995.