Is Paul a hypocrite, a liar, or simply misunderstood regarding the law?

Remember God's Word is Perfect, Secure and Forever.
Yhwh called and chose Peter, James, John, and Paul and others as Apostles.
Yeshua personally taught Paul by revelation.

It is written that whoever rejects the one God sends, rejects God.
Those who reject any of the Apostles sent by God, including Paul,
rejects Jesus (this always happens).

Thus, any apparent contradiction is simply man's and not God's.

Travis93 said:

He kept the Sabbath day many times (Acts 13:14,Acts 13:42-44, Acts 16:13, Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:11) and he also observed the feasts (Acts 18:21, Acts 20:6, Acts 20:16, Acts 27:9, 1 Corinthians 5:7-8). He circumcised Timotheus in Acts 16:1-3, took a Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18, Acts 21:22-24), and did other offerings besides just the vow (Acts 24:17). He said he hadn't broken any point of the law of the Jews in Acts 25:8 and said he believes all of the law and the prophets in Acts 24:14.

Click to expand...

In all the Sabbath quotes none of them tell us Paul was observing or "keeping" Sabbath. Sabbath was the day Jews were assembled together and Paul took the opportunity to spread the good news of Jesus to them. Acts 18:11 has nothing to do with Sabbath.

In the feast quotes Acts 18:21 Paul did for some reason attend the feast. Acts 20:6 is a reference as to when he traveled Acts 20:16 is Pentecost an observance Christians observe today. Acts 27:9 says absolutely nothing about Paul observing the fast, it again was a reference as to the time He was sailing. 1Cor 5:7-8 is the Lord's supper. Act 24:1-3 3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area. I have already discussed Acts 25:8 where he was defending himself and Acts 24:14 is a statement that anyone who believes in God should be able to say. We believe they are true and we believe Jesus fulfilled them.

Out of all the scriptural references only one could possibly be a clue that Paul considered himself under Torah. Of course weighed against all of Paul's writings we have to conclude Paul did not consider himself to be under Torah.

With all this in mind, for him to teach people not to follow the law would be extremely hypocritical.

Click to expand...

I just proved your references had nothing to do with Paul being under Torah, so your premise is void.

Did Christ become of no effect to Timotheus as the result of Paul (Galatians 5:2)?

Click to expand...

It allowed him entrance into the Temple and to spread the Gospel. It had no relationship to his relationship with Jesus. Jesus doesn't care about circumcision.

Was Paul observing weak and beggarly elements (Galatians 4:9-10), mere shadows of Christ (Colossians 2:16-17), by keeping the feasts and sabbath?

Click to expand...

The feast we do not understand because of all his other writings. Sabbaths we do understand because we know what his intent was ny taking the day to preach Christ to all of those that gathered on that day. It never says that Paul kept the Sabbath, he used it as stated.

Was Paul fallen from grace for keeping the law (Galatians 5:4)? That's the standard anti-law interpretation of those verses after all.

Click to expand...

Problem is that you have not proven that Paul kept the law, so your point is mute.

He said faith doesn't void the law (Romans 3:31). He said the law is holy, just, and good (Romans 7:12). He delights in the law (Romans 7:22). He said the carnal mind is not subject to the law and is against God (Romans 8:7) He extorted us to follow him as he follows Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:1). He told Timothy that all scripture was profitable for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and from 2 Timothy 3:15 we know he had the scripture since he was a child, so what scripture existed back then?

2 Peter 3:15-16 says Paul is hard to be understood and there are people who will wrest his letters to their own destruction. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 says if anyone who tries to lead you away from the law is a false prophet even if they do signs and wonders and Isaiah 8:20 says anyone who doesn't have the law has no light in them.

Click to expand...

You can take all the scripture you want out of context to try to prove your point and I will take you back to Matt 5:17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. Jesus accomplished the purpose of Torah at Calvary. How can anyone deny this fact?

The problem is not with people's understanding of Paul.

The problem is people don't understand Christ, Peter, or James.

Christ was not a Christian. He was Christ. Christ ministered the law, and ministered grace. All his teachings, all his sayings have to be divided between old covenant and new covenant. If you mix an old covenant saying into the new covenant, it will disagree with salvation, Paul's statements, ect.

What James and Peter do is they operate on the same understanding Paul has, but they more heavily guise their intent. James says, "faith without works is dead". And then he uses a very subtle elaboration of what faith is, using symbolism, to make it fly over the head of the Jews whom he would have been preaching to.

And so the Jew would think, "Oh, I better go do good works!" And it's true, this is good stuff, they aught to go do it. But if James is fully studied, that's not really what he meant. He rather meant your faith produces good works, as we were made for good works. Ephesians 2:10 He says it in symbolism but does not overtly explain it. He was also countering false faith. There is faith that is not faith because it never produces manifestations of God's goodness in the world. That is not faith.

And then Peter is pretty straight forward and agrees with Paul, but he has some phrasing at times that seems harsher like the law, but it is not the law.

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. - 2 Peter 3:16

Peter here is pretty clear, if you distort Paul's teaching, you do so to your own destruction. These things are hard to understand for ignorant and unstable people. So clearly the problem is not Paul, the issue is Paul elaborated the truth clearer than others, and because of the clarity of truth revealed it became difficult to understand for the ignorant.

Jesus elaborated the same truth as Paul, but you have to really fish for it through deep understanding of scripture. A lot of it is shown in the upper room of John's gospel. Those truths are for the New Testament church. A lot of his other statements were for the nation of Israel. He simply addressed different people under two different covenants.

Christ did not come to proclaim 1 covenant, but 2 covenants. To establish the law, and then fulfill the law. Establishing the law is declaring the law stands, using it for its purpose to condemn all men. And then he fulfilled the law, by nailing the obligation to the law to the cross.

When he said, "It is finished!" He fulfilled the obligation to the law. He plainly said it without guise, but you have to understand what he was saying and why. Therefore, his teachings on the law were more palatable to many, and this is intentional. Those who esteem themselves as righteous followers of the law aught to follow it. Christ encouraged this.

A person should follow the law to the point they are broken and realize their depravity, and then they will call out for Jesus Christ. It's just how it works. And while Paul focuses on what happens after this transformation occurs to us in the church... Christ focuses on the law a great deal, so we realize our depravity and our need for him. Paul did not write to the lost, though.

Bob S said:

How can anyone deny this fact?

Click to expand...

It's not a fact.
But don't worry - a lot of
Blind people don't deny it - they don't know better.

Travis93 said:

He kept the Sabbath day many times (Acts 13:14,Acts 13:42-44, Acts 16:13, Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:11) and he also observed the feasts (Acts 18:21, Acts 20:6, Acts 20:16, Acts 27:9, 1 Corinthians 5:7-8). He circumcised Timotheus in Acts 16:1-3, took a Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18, Acts 21:22-24), and did other offerings besides just the vow (Acts 24:17). He said he hadn't broken any point of the law of the Jews in Acts 25:8 and said he believes all of the law and the prophets in Acts 24:14.

With all this in mind, for him to teach people not to follow the law would be extremely hypocritical. Did Christ become of no effect to Timotheus as the result of Paul (Galatians 5:2)? Was Paul observing weak and beggarly elements (Galatians 4:9-10), mere shadows of Christ (Colossians 2:16-17), by keeping the feasts and sabbath? Was Paul fallen from grace for keeping the law (Galatians 5:4)? That's the standard anti-law interpretation of those verses after all.

He said faith doesn't void the law (Romans 3:31). He said the law is holy, just, and good (Romans 7:12). He delights in the law (Romans 7:22). He said the carnal mind is not subject to the law and is against God (Romans 8:7) He extorted us to follow him as he follows Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:1). He told Timothy that all scripture was profitable for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and from 2 Timothy 3:15 we know he had the scripture since he was a child, so what scripture existed back then?

2 Peter 3:15-16 says Paul is hard to be understood and there are people who will wrest his letters to their own destruction. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 says if anyone who tries to lead you away from the law is a false prophet even if they do signs and wonders and Isaiah 8:20 says anyone who doesn't have the law has no light in them.

Click to expand...

There are a few other options you've failed to mention.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

It's not a fact.

Click to expand...

If it is not a fact then please explain why. Denying it without reason is not good debating. I am willing to listen, poor it on brother.

Bob S said:

If it is not a fact then please explain why. Denying it without reason is not good debating. I am willing to listen, poor it on brother.

Click to expand...

Pour.
Matthew 13:40-42Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up in the fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will collect out of his Kingdom all the things that cause people to sin and all the people who are far from Torah; 42 and they will throw them into the fiery furnace, where people will wail and grind their teeth.

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

Razare said:

The problem is not with people's understanding of Paul.

The problem is people don't understand Christ, Peter, or James.

Christ was not a Christian. He was Christ. Christ ministered the law, and ministered grace. All his teachings, all his sayings have to be divided between old covenant and new covenant. If you mix an old covenant saying into the new covenant, it will disagree with salvation, Paul's statements, ect.

What James and Peter do is they operate on the same understanding Paul has, but they more heavily guise their intent. James says, "faith without works is dead". And then he uses a very subtle elaboration of what faith is, using symbolism, to make it fly over the head of the Jews whom he would have been preaching to.

And so the Jew would think, "Oh, I better go do good works!" And it's true, this is good stuff, they aught to go do it. But if James is fully studied, that's not really what he meant. He rather meant your faith produces good works, as we were made for good works. Ephesians 2:10 He says it in symbolism but does not overtly explain it. He was also countering false faith. There is faith that is not faith because it never produces manifestations of God's goodness in the world. That is not faith.

And then Peter is pretty straight forward and agrees with Paul, but he has some phrasing at times that seems harsher like the law, but it is not the law.

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. - 2 Peter 3:16

Peter here is pretty clear, if you distort Paul's teaching, you do so to your own destruction. These things are hard to understand for ignorant and unstable people. So clearly the problem is not Paul, the issue is Paul elaborated the truth clearer than others, and because of the clarity of truth revealed it became difficult to understand for the ignorant.

Jesus elaborated the same truth as Paul, but you have to really fish for it through deep understanding of scripture. A lot of it is shown in the upper room of John's gospel. Those truths are for the New Testament church. A lot of his other statements were for the nation of Israel. He simply addressed different people under two different covenants.

Click to expand...

I really do not believe everyone has the same problem understanding the Apostles. It is evident that some distort scripture to magnify their preconceived ideas. You refer to James and good works, of course James was not at odds with Paul and his stance on works of the law. James was referring to good deeds produced by believing.

Christ did not come to proclaim 1 covenant, but 2 covenants. To establish the law, and then fulfill the law. Establishing the law is declaring the law stands, using it for its purpose to condemn all men. And then he fulfilled the law, by nailing the obligation to the law to the cross.

Click to expand...

I really do not understand, the law was established at Sinai, Jews were law savvy.

When he said, "It is finished!" He fulfilled the obligation to the law. He plainly said it without guise, but you have to understand what he was saying and why. Therefore, his teachings on the law were more palatable to many, and this is intentional. Those who esteem themselves as righteous followers of the law aught to follow it. Christ encouraged this.

Click to expand...

They were under the law and the new law had not yet been ratified by Jesus Blood, what else could He have taught?

A person should follow the law to the point they are broken and realize their depravity, and then they will call out for Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Paul wrote:
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
That certainly does not tell us we are to follow the law until we are broken. The law is there to reveal sin. Unrepentant simmers do not follow the law. The law is their to prick our conscience so as to reveal sin and the need of Jesus.

It's just how it works. And while Paul focuses on what happens after this transformation occurs to us in the church... Christ focuses on the law a great deal, so we realize our depravity and our need for him.

Click to expand...

Jesus focused on the law because of all the law thumpers. His focus was on love for us, teaching how we should love, making witnesses out of His followers and foremost being the Lamb sacrificed to save mankind.

Paul did not write to the lost, though.

Click to expand...

He didn't???

Travis93 said:

He kept the Sabbath day many times (Acts 13:14,Acts 13:42-44, Acts 16:13, Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:11) and he also observed the feasts (Acts 18:21, Acts 20:6, Acts 20:16, Acts 27:9, 1 Corinthians 5:7-8). He circumcised Timotheus in Acts 16:1-3, took a Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18, Acts 21:22-24), and did other offerings besides just the vow (Acts 24:17). He said he hadn't broken any point of the law of the Jews in Acts 25:8 and said he believes all of the law and the prophets in Acts 24:14.

With all this in mind, for him to teach people not to follow the law would be extremely hypocritical. Did Christ become of no effect to Timotheus as the result of Paul (Galatians 5:2)? Was Paul observing weak and beggarly elements (Galatians 4:9-10), mere shadows of Christ (Colossians 2:16-17), by keeping the feasts and sabbath? Was Paul fallen from grace for keeping the law (Galatians 5:4)? That's the standard anti-law interpretation of those verses after all.

He said faith doesn't void the law (Romans 3:31). He said the law is holy, just, and good (Romans 7:12). He delights in the law (Romans 7:22). He said the carnal mind is not subject to the law and is against God (Romans 8:7) He extorted us to follow him as he follows Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:1). He told Timothy that all scripture was profitable for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and from 2 Timothy 3:15 we know he had the scripture since he was a child, so what scripture existed back then?

2 Peter 3:15-16 says Paul is hard to be understood and there are people who will wrest his letters to their own destruction. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 says if anyone who tries to lead you away from the law is a false prophet even if they do signs and wonders and Isaiah 8:20 says anyone who doesn't have the law has no light in them.

Click to expand...

It depends on who is quoting Paul and for what reason. The out of context quotes to make Paul say something he didn't mean makes him a fraud.

bugkiller

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Pour.
Matthew 13:40-42Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up in the fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will collect out of his Kingdom all the things that cause people to sin and all the people who are far from Torah; 42 and they will throw them into the fiery furnace, where people will wail and grind their teeth.

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

Click to expand...

The CJB is a translation of the Bible into English by Dr. David H. Stern. It consists of Dr. Stern's revised translation of the Old Testament (Tanakh) plus his original Jewish New Testament (B'rit Hadashah) translation in one volume. It was published in its entirety in 1998 by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.

Sounds like Dr Sterns bible is his and his only opinion. I looked at several translations and none of them referred to Torah or law. Sin didn't stop at Calvary. The ritual laws of Torah did. Anything concerning morality in all of the Bible is part of the New Covenant law of love.

Nice try though. I had to do a little digging to be able to refute your answer.

Bob S said:

Nice try though. I had to do a little digging to be able to refute your answer.

Click to expand...

Seek ,and keep seeking (the truth), and you will find it.
If you stopped already, don't count on it. (you found a little bit of truth - there is so much more yet for you to find)
And even if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter, does it? (if you want to know the truth)
God doesn't say seek and stop.
btw, I wasn't referring to ritual laws of torah , anywhere, as far as I know.

He's misunderstood, for sure

Sha'ul took a vow to prove that he lived according to Torah. That was why the Jerusalem council wanted him to take the vow - Acts 21:24

Sha'ul was falsely accused of not teaching and living according to the Torah.

Christianity takes his letters completely out of context to teach, promote and encourage living a lawless life. His letters are used to uphold the traditions of men over the commandments of the Most High

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Seek ,and keep seeking (the truth), and you will find it.
If you stopped already, don't count on it. (you found a little bit of truth - there is so much more yet for you to find)
And even if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter, does it? (if you want to know the truth)
God doesn't say seek and stop.
btw, I wasn't referring to ritual laws of torah , anywhere, as far as I know.

Click to expand...

Hmmm! I didn't write that you did. The feast days that Paul attended was a ritual* law given by God to Israel and Israel alone. They ceased to be an obligation at the Cross when Torah became history and the new covenant with its law of love as Jesus loves us became the Christian's commandment.

*By ritual I am pointing out that the feast days had nothing to do with morality, how we deal with our fellow man.

Ritual:
prescribed, established, or ceremonial acts or features collectively, as in religious services.
any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner.

Travis93 said:

He kept the Sabbath day many times (Acts 13:14,Acts 13:42-44, Acts 16:13, Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:11) and he also observed the feasts (Acts 18:21, Acts 20:6, Acts 20:16, Acts 27:9, 1 Corinthians 5:7-8). He circumcised Timotheus in Acts 16:1-3, took a Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18, Acts 21:22-24), and did other offerings besides just the vow (Acts 24:17). He said he hadn't broken any point of the law of the Jews in Acts 25:8 and said he believes all of the law and the prophets in Acts 24:14.

With all this in mind, for him to teach people not to follow the law would be extremely hypocritical. Did Christ become of no effect to Timotheus as the result of Paul (Galatians 5:2)? Was Paul observing weak and beggarly elements (Galatians 4:9-10), mere shadows of Christ (Colossians 2:16-17), by keeping the feasts and sabbath? Was Paul fallen from grace for keeping the law (Galatians 5:4)? That's the standard anti-law interpretation of those verses after all.

He said faith doesn't void the law (Romans 3:31). He said the law is holy, just, and good (Romans 7:12). He delights in the law (Romans 7:22). He said the carnal mind is not subject to the law and is against God (Romans 8:7) He extorted us to follow him as he follows Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:1). He told Timothy that all scripture was profitable for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and from 2 Timothy 3:15 we know he had the scripture since he was a child, so what scripture existed back then?

2 Peter 3:15-16 says Paul is hard to be understood and there are people who will wrest his letters to their own destruction. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 says if anyone who tries to lead you away from the law is a false prophet even if they do signs and wonders and Isaiah 8:20 says anyone who doesn't have the law has no light in them.

Click to expand...

In fact Acts 18:4 "EVERY SABBATH" we see both jews and gentiles gather for worship and gospel preaching in the synagogues.

Travis93 said:

All laws are moral. The laws about our fellow man teach us how to love our neighbor, and the other laws teach us how to love God. Take the 10 commandments. If you love your neighbor, you won't kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, dishonor your parents, or cover their possessions. If you love God, you won't serve other gods, make graven images or bow to them, profane his name, or break his sabbath. Even if you aren't sinning against a fellow man you can still sin against God.

Click to expand...

They are moral but even in the OT - only 3 of the annual feast - ceremonial Sabbaths were binding on the Jews as mandatory. Skipping 4 of the other annual events was not a sin even by OT standards. So when we speak of "moral" law we mean the 1 John 3:4 sense in which to violate that law is to sin.

BobRyan said:

"EVERY SABBATH" we see both Jews and gentiles*

Click to expand...

"" "" Honor Yhwh in the New Testament AND in Torah ( )in the Old Testament also.

*(gentiles WITH the Jews)

Dkh587 said:

He's misunderstood, for sure

Sha'ul took a vow to prove that he lived according to Torah. That was why the Jerusalem council wanted him to take the vow - Acts 21:24

Sha'ul was falsely accused of not teaching and living according to the Torah.

Christianity takes his letters completely out of context to teach, promote and encourage living a lawless life. His letters are used to uphold the traditions of men over the commandments of the Most High

Click to expand...

Please describe this lawless life you insist we live.

bugkiller

Travis93 said:

All laws are moral. The laws about our fellow man teach us how to love our neighbor, and the other laws teach us how to love God. Take the 10 commandments. If you love your neighbor, you won't kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, dishonor your parents, or cover their possessions. If you love God, you won't serve other gods, make graven images or bow to them, profane his name, or break his sabbath. Even if you aren't sinning against a fellow man you can still sin against God.

Click to expand...

In the sense you take the law to be moral, its only moral to Israeli.

bugkiller