What I find incredibly ironic and obviously not well thought out at all, is the Catholic claim that Jesus came to found a religion.
For one thing, if the OT Law could not save, which Scripture is VERY clear about its inability to do so, then what else would there be to set up for people to follow that could save? And if what Jesus came to set up something that could save that the Law couldn't, why not just give the *new* Law in the first place?
Not to mention that Jesus didn't change any of the Law. On the contrary, He clearly stated that He did not come to abolish the Law and Prophets but to fulfill them. So the old Law is still the best God had to offer as a system of laws for salvation.
Now, in regards to Jesus teaching in the beatitudes, He did not set up new teaching for people to follow to earn salvation.
He took the current Law that was at that time in effect, which already couldn't save as it was, and SET THE BAR EVEN HIGHER.
He said that it wasn't just a matter of obeying the Law on the outside, but it was the heart that counted. IOW, lust = adultery, and hate = murder.
So if the old Law couldn't save, what makes any reasoning human being think that following what Jesus clarified in regard to the Law would be any more capable of saving?
And if the Law that Jesus gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai couldn't save, what makes anyone think that anything they concoct to add to it is going to be any more capable of saving? They can add all the sacraments and rituals they want, but if it's not God ordained, it's simply the filthy rags Isaiah talks about.
By Jesus’ own words he came not to destroy but to fulfill the Law. What he he brought was foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures and would be the final outworking of the Law.
The Law was a covenant, a contract that called for the nation of Israel to become a nation of kings and priests.
The NT explains how that covenant is going to be completed or fulfilled.