I'm not sure if its my insomnia, a stinking cold, or the fact that the evidence just isn't there, but I still can't see how you can suggest John the Baptist and Jesus did anything but uphold the law.
Steve J,
It is one thing to uphold the Law because it was the only vehicle for salvation at the time and another thing to work towards putting an end to it because it would no longer serve this purpose in a very short time as shown. How can you say that they did not do anything but uphold the law when what they were doing was putting an end to it? Mt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Some would call this sedition.
You used this example:in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus teaches, by firstly reminding the people of the law on adultery and then saying; "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart." (Matt 5:27,28)
Where in the Law is that found? And Jesus said: Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. And again: Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. Since Jesus was providing commandments of His own that differed from the Law and its commandments as taught at the last supper by drinking the wine which represented His blood for example how is it that this Jesus was supporting the Law and its continuation? And how about this commandment of Jesus: 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. Where is this found in the Law? So many texts and I have not even started to cover them.
You said: You also mentioned the Lords Supper and the new covenant found at Luke 22, but I can't even see how this abolished the law. All it did was establish a promise that if Jesus' disciples remained faithful they would have a share in the atonement of his redeeming death.
No, it did much more than that: What it would really do is: 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. The Law did not do this did it? If so where? Jesus was speaking to those keeping the Law which did not provide this benefit to them. The scriptures teach that everyone resurrected will not have eternal life or Justification as it come to be known. But it was not time for this Law to end yet so He continued to keep it as you have shown yet this is not proof that it would not end. It simply showed that the time for its end was still future.
You said: But in a previous post (360 re: Matt 5:17-20) I mentioned that I'd come to the conclusion that the apostasy in the early church was down to Paul. . . I base my conclusions, (although they're not set in stone and I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong, if I see the proof, I hasten to add) but I base them on the fact that I can't find anything other than in Paul's writings which suggests Jesus intended to do away with the law.
So many texts like Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses - apart of Paul’s writings so where do I start? Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. A better hope brought in? Not a continuation of this Law? Any other form of worship deemed better would have violated this Law making the worshipers apostate and libel to be stoned. Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Wow! The Law broken big time. Get out the stones. And it goes on and on like this but not so if your mind is closed. It is not necessary to cover every verse and cross every tee. You have your views and I have stated mine. It is up to the readers now to study the matter on their own and make up their own minds.
Joseph