Isn't it fair, one could argue, that he is consistent in being the antithesis of anything else ever included in the entire biblical canon, perhaps? If so, I'll drink to that.
On the other hand, Matthew, that is, besides the clear editions made by the Vatican, is in perfect harmony with all previous scripture, as is James, with no song and dance, no backflips, suppositions and "here, he isn't saying what he's saying, what he means is what I need him to mean in order to fit with my belief" like Paul requires.
I love that I can totally use Paul to both prove Torah to be necessary to keep today, and to prove that it has been done away with.
Isn't it also fair to say that any argument trying to prove that Paul was pro Torah by posting lots of out of context passages reads like someone posting lots of random ingredients from a chicken and ham pie, while ignoring anything that doesn't support the claim that they're making that it is unclean for an Israelite;
"Look, this is kosher! It contains: Fortified Wheat Flour [
Wheat Flour, Calcium Carbonate, Iron, Niacin (B3), Thiamin (B1)] , Chicken (24%) ,
Whole Milk , Water , Palm Oil , Salt, Brown Sugar, Antioxidant (Sodium Ascorbate), Preservative (Sodium Nitrite)] , Single Cream (from
Milk) (4.0%) , Unsalted Butter (from
Milk) , Full Fat Hard Cheese (from
Milk) (1.9%) , Rapeseed Oil , Onions , Cheddar Cheese (from
Milk) (1.0%),
Free Range Egg , Modified Maize Starch , Leek , Salt , Cornflour , Tapioca , Crispy Fried Onion [Onions, Palm Oil,
Wheat Flour, Salt] , Flavouring , Parsley , Black Pepper . See, Kosher! Anyone getting anything unclean from eating it are eating it wrong, they are unlearned and unstable!"
Perhaps that's a bad example any way, because, isn't it a sign of weak faith and conscience to not eat the unclean or anything sacrificed to idols, according to Paul?
I'm sure that no one would call this Kosher
http://groceries.asda.com/product/i...s-chicken-smoked-pulled-ham-pies/910001508251
But many deny that Paul is teaching people to reject Torah from one side of his mouth, while teaching pro Torah teachings through the other... This is NOT an attack on Paul as per the rules, this is an objective observation, hence the questions, so that if anyone believes that I'm mistaken in my observations and can show them to be demonstrably false, they can address the questions.
in my experience thus far, no one has been able to address these problems with Paul, regardless of whether they accept him 100% as a source of scripture worthy to define theology, whether they consider him a useful added extra to the scripture or whether they reject him.