Lets read the full verse now... Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
When Jesus died... it was accomplished... all was accomplished. When Jesus dies he said "it is finished" John 19:30. Jesus's death marked the point of a new covenant, nailing the old law to the cross. Colossians 2:14-17 Paul did not see the old law and the new law as the same. He wrote that previous verse in Colossians. He realized that the former law was in our favor when it comes to forgiveness. He also realized the old law was nailed to the cross. Just because e sited the old law does not mean he still was a Jew in religion. When the old testament refers to things such as books of wisdom or historical event, etc. they are to be believed and used for our learning, Romans 15:4. These thing are obey Christians. the only thing is the method of worship and salvation. The law of Moses was a collection of over 600 laws and statues that we are not bound to today.
That verse Matthew 28:19 does not directly state that the gospel is for all directly, ill give you that, but come o you know what its saying. When it says tech ALL nations it is implying the gospel is for ALL. Romans 1:16 says it is for the Jews and Gentiles... meaning ALL
Here's the problem. You never dealt with Matthew. You jumped to what John wrote and then what Paul wrote. By the time Paul was writing, Jesus was dead. Paul never met Jesus and there is no evidence that what Paul was saying came from Jesus. To combine them all as if they were one written record simply doesn't work, unless you're writing a new narrative.
.
The new covenant is clearly unequivocally mentioned in the old testament
A lot of things are mentioned in the Old Testament. The Law is mentioned in the Old Testament.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people
Doesn't say anything about Jesus, or the Jesus movement, or the Messiah. To state this is what Jesus was talking about, when it is never mentioned, simply is making up a new narrative.
The old covenant that was replaced entailed Sacrifices,Rituals and ceremonies. Notice how in the new Covenant
Not really. The old covenant was based on Love. You followed the Law because you love God. It really is as simple as that.
God says he will put his law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. Thats the moral code the 10 commandments not the sacrifices,rituals and ceremonies. They were done away with, They were pictures of future events, Christs sacrifice being one of those foretold future events being fulfilled. Math 5:17 Example the Passover feast was a picture, a shadow of a future event . That event recognized by John the baptist John 1:29 Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. John the baptist recognizing that the picture set forth in the Passover was about to be fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God
So we do have the new covenant foretold by Jeremiah 31:31
And we do have Jesus acknowledging the new Covenant Luke 22:20
The Hebrew writer was simply quoting old testament Prophets recognizing their fulfillment in his day Heb 8:8
So, I will agree that various portions of the Bible say different things. The issue here is that Matthew is very clear that the old covenant, the Law itself, wouldn't be abolished or changed in anyway. So yes, you can find other books that say different things, and that's really the issue here.
First of all, this is my last post on this with you as you're posting certainty in an uncertain arena, along with your condescending tone.
If I have come off as condescending, that really isn't my intention. I do have a tendency to speak matter of factly, which is often tactless. As for posting certainty in an uncertain arena, that's basically what a debate of any type is. You've been doing it as well.
I've read literally a couple hundred theology books over the years, and most simply do not agree with you. One simply cannot draw a line in the sand and say X started here when there's previous continuity involved. No doubt that the post 70 c.e. church began moving further away from normative Judaism, especially after the destruction of the Temple and the diasporah that brought in more gentiles to the fold.
There is a different between theological work on the subject, and historical work. I can tell you for certain that the consensus is that the early church began, from a historical perspective, after the fall of the Temple in 70 C.E. This is in conjunction with Christianity becoming its own religion. I say this is the consensus in mainstream scholarship as that's what is being taught in colleges, and is the view that is proposed by the leaders in the field. Theologically, that could be different, as they are looking at different issues.
There is as we see a division of power within the ranks, such as Judas being the treasurer. If James had the power you claim he did, then why would Paul be confronting Peter? And also why did Peter's vision on ignoring the Kosher Laws become the norm? And why did Jesus tell Peter to "feed my sheep..."?
There might be a division of power, but that doesn't mean that the spiritual leader and political leader were seen as different individuals. It simply means that they delegated to others. Why would Paul be confronting Peter? Peter was guilty of the misconduct in Paul's eye. Why did Peter's vision of ignoring the Kosher Laws become the norm? Who says it became the norm? It may have become the norm in Paul's churches, but even then that's iffy as Paul tells his followers to still keep the Kosher Laws if it causes problems with others. And we have no idea what the norm in the Jewish sect was. We simply know what Paul said, and he wasn't the norm. As for Jesus saying feed my sheep, you can feed sheep with the Kosher Law.
Your sentences above contradict each another.
What you say is correct in that the movement was indeed a Jewish movement, however, to distinguish itself from normative Judaism, the earliest title that we know of is "the Way", probably from Jesus saying "I am the way, the truth, and the life...". "Christian" didn't get used for the movement until the early 2nd century, and most scholars that I have read believe whereas when it's used in Acts, that it was used as an insult.
I don't see a contradiction. I state we know virtually nothing with some exceptions. Thats not a contradiction. During the 1st century, there was no normative Judaism, so there would have been no reason to distinguish oneself or one's group from that.
Hogwash. I've read the gospels through many times over, so your condescension here leads me to walk away from this conversation.
I'm not saying you don't know the Gospels. What I'm saying is that your argument relied on assumptions of what Jesus may have said. You state, for instance, "what Jesus taught must have led up to these changes vis-a-vis the Law." Yet there was nothing in the Gospels showing that Jesus suggested what you were saying. You made an implication based on what later people did, assuming that they in no way would have disagreed with Jesus. But you can't make that assumption, as we know for sure that later leaders ignored or disagreed with Jesus. Paul even does so.
So, they just ignored what Jesus taught? Not likely, imo. However, there's no doubt that Paul and the others went well beyond what Jesus taught as a probably application of where they believed Jesus was coming from. The idea that they would walk away from the Law without something Jesus must have said is so completely illogical. He was their leader. He was viewed as being more important than the prophets. He had to say something to open that door, and I believe that it's his emphasis on "he law of love", versus following the literalness of the Law, was likely the reason.
Why wouldn't they disagree with Jesus. He was only seen as more important than the prophets later on. He was only seen as godly later on. In the first century, there isn't evidence that he was seen as the final word. Paul even disagrees with Jesus, for instance, on divorce. It's one of the only places that Paul quotes Jesus, but he then disagrees with Jesus. So yes, they would have ignored what Jesus taught, or disagreed with him. We have evidence of that.
It's the likely reason why N.T. verses on the Law as found in the gospels seem almost schizophrenic, with some reaffirming the Law and some opposing it. IOW, it seems to me to be Jesus' very liberal take on the Law, which to a limited extent parallels Hillel's.
Take care, but I'm fini.
Hilel wasn't liberal when it came to the law. He was simply, as Jesus did, repeating a basic Jewish concept that can be found in the OT. The reason the NT seems schizophrenic (which I don't think is the correct term here) is because it was written by a variety of different authors with different views.
