The Law and Paul

[nothead]

It was normal Jewish view overall for both thinking and action to be merged in concept...

...even their language considering what a man DOES what defines him. Verbs and nouns have the same root core source. The noun is the WHAT or THING. The verb is the DOING. The root is the CONCEPT of both. Sort of like loving and the beloved. Dwelling or tabernacling and the indwelt, or indwelling ones.

So then Paul divides attitude and action, SEEMINGLY in his Epistles regarding Law. He does this in almost hellenistic mien the distinction between faith and works made. And drawing a conclusion from this distinction.

What made him do this? What was the intent of Paul in doing this? I consider that Paul was a Pharisee first. For him PREVIOUSLY being a "lawyer" was a most prestigious job description. In fact for these types of Jews, the Law is the total list of laws, the 613, targums, anything which could be said to be a command of God. Extensions made by rabbis. Sublaws, bylaws, laws on top of laws, implications of law, all possible manifestations of law. For them, all possible circumstances were COVERED by their law, and even the smallest one possibly given MORE creedence since the Core Law laws were already done (in their consideration) first. A man was saved temporally and possibly eternally by DOING this Law en whole...in perfection. The whole cup is clean and every dust speck on it was wiped off. Even fingerprints are not ON it since he is careful to WASH himself frequently, figuratively speaking.

This would be "salvation by works." Works are listed and compared. Competition of works inherent. The sins infrequent and lowly (as a speck of dust) are propitiated by sacrifice, and this of animals. The Works themselves considered the EVIDENCE of spirituality.

Thus praying loudly and publicly is the norm, no matter where the heart lyeth. Giving a show of works is the norm. And being obsessive about this even for the itty bitty things God looks at is the norm.

Paul was saying we are not saved by these things at all. Faith is the correct attitude. And works are not compared or listed. Stacked up like money in the bank. Showing evidence of publicly not desired by God at all. He DID dichotomize the attitude from the doing of for this purpose: to emphasize our attitudes over what we do. The Holy Spirit indwelling IS the correct attitude as we bind unto it. The rebirthed man HAVING a correct and accurate attitude.

For works can be done with POOR attitudes. Comparison, a show of, pride and greed can underly so many public works in appearance. Obsessiveness, fanaticism, compulsive attitudes can underlie many works in general.

But there is nothing whatsoever wrong with works of faith. This is informed by the love of God, and manifested OUT of the same. I can only see the martyrs of Jesus blessed. The servants of God rewarded. The obedient and loyal to God glorified. Not only their faith rewarded, but also the works of faith following. Paul's epistles must coincide with the simple cup of water rewarded for the servants of Jesus. Plain common sense and red letter statement is NOT abrogated from some THEOLOGICAL conclusion made from Paul's writings.

Faith, hope and love. The BASTIONS of the Christian religion. Overlapping in import, relating a SINGLE experience of relations to God. This is ATTITUDE folks, and not technically within the boundaries of action/works at all. Although both attitude and works COMBINE to make a faithful life, the FAITH in the faithful life is purely emphasized by Paul here in NT.

 

[toLiJC]

the systematic Bible reading is not the way to understand the truth in principle, first because the Prophets/Saints that wrote the biblical scriptures explained the truth summarily in a simple language consisting of special terms that are at least figurative for most people, second because the translations of the Bible are usually somewhat imperfect, for most people that participated in its translations were not fully aware of its language, so we have a Scripture that is at least very figurative for us, because the biblical words and phrases are very specific and discreet spiritual terms

the right way to understand the truth is rather by practicing the faith in the true Lord God right enough, years ago i went in for theology by systematically studying the Bible, but months after relying on it i realized i waste my time, because i had achieved nothing for all that time, i just forsook all ineffective spiritual/religious traditions/tendencies and started to practice the faith in the One Who is really the true Lord God very carefully, now (without boasting about myself) i understand the truth of God and Jesus Christ as well as the whole Scripture even without reading it, of course thanks to Them, the Father and the Son

in the epistles of St Paul there is talk of the difference between the "deeds of the faith" and the "deeds of the law" (Romans 3:27-28), the first one is the right practice of faith in God, the second one is the practice of human religion which consists principally in following spiritual/religious traditions, rites/rituals, ceremonies, customs, etc. (Hebrews 8:5, 9:8-12, 10:1), the right faith is based on true love for the neighbor/humans (Galatians 5:6), while the law as a direction of the faith is based on spirituality and religiosity which have rather occult and idolatrous character than anything to do with the true "Light" Itself, that is why Jesus said most worshipers that "ate" the "bread" of the old testament rather died than lived (John 6:49, 6:58) - compared to "eating" the "bread" of the New Testament

on the other hand, there is also a Holy law of God, which is good for the humans, because all Holy commandments of God are entirely good for everyone, but there was also a deuteronomic part of the law that has somewhat of a misleading character, such as the very typical "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth"(Exodus 21:23-25), because it implies some kinds of infliction of harm on the neighbor, for satan had a power to make a certain part of the/some ordinances be so represented

Blessings

 

[nothead]

the systematic Bible reading is not the way to understand the truth in principle, first because the Prophets/Saints that wrote the biblical scriptures explained the truth summarily in a simple language consisting of special terms that are at least figurative for most people, second because the translations of the Bible are usually somewhat imperfect, for most people that participated in its translations were not fully aware of its language, so we have a Scripture that is at least very figurative for us, because the biblical words and phrases are very specific and discreet spiritual terms

the right way to understand the truth is rather by practicing the faith in the true Lord God right enough, years ago i went in for theology by systematically studying the Bible, but months after relying on it i realized i waste my time, because i had achieved nothing for all that time, i just forsook all ineffective spiritual/religious traditions/tendencies and started to practice the faith in the One Who is really the true Lord God very carefully, now (without boasting about myself) i understand the truth of God and Jesus Christ as well as the whole Scripture even without reading it, of course thanks to Them, the Father and the Son

in the epistles of St Paul there is talk of the difference between the "deeds of the faith" and the "deeds of the law" (Romans 3:27-28), the first one is the right practice of faith in God, the second one is the practice of human religion which consists principally in following spiritual/religious traditions, rites/rituals, ceremonies, customs, etc. (Hebrews 8:5, 9:8-12, 10:1), the right faith is based on true love for the neighbor/humans (Galatians 5:6), while the law as a direction of the faith is based on spirituality and religiosity which have rather occult and idolatrous character than anything to do with the true "Light" Itself, that is why Jesus said most worshipers that "ate" the "bread" of the old testament rather died than lived (John 6:49, 6:58) - compared to "eating" the "bread" of the New Testament

on the other hand, there is also a Holy law of God, which is good for the humans, because all Holy commandments of God are entirely good for everyone, but there was also a deuteronomic part of the law that has somewhat of a misleading character, such as the very typical "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth"(Exodus 21:23-25), because it implies some kinds of infliction of harm on the neighbor, for satan had a power to make a certain part of the/some ordinances be so represented

Blessings

Instead of using other's Paradigms of Hermeneutics, a simple placing of oneself IN THE STEAD of the brother writing scripture is much more valuable and efficacious. This is enhanced by knowing basic definitions of the KOINE in the case of the NT. Also the context historically from which he wrote. Hebraic Roots has helped me beyond normal considerations.

Put yourself in his place. See what he did see when he wrote. This methodology is very basic and commonsensical.

All things must reconcile unless you consider text disparate according to whims of humans. Inerrancy supposes at LEAST the Author behind the author is saying common sense words which point to and indicate Life itself holistically. So then James' "Faith without works is dead" must RECONCILE to anything Paul says which might seem to contradict. Martin Luther even had trouble on this issue, and I don't mind saying it. He thought James was off his rocker for instance.

 

[SkyWriting]

Instead of using other's Paradigms of Hermeneutics, a simple placing of oneself IN THE STEAD of the brother writing scripture is much more valuable and efficacious. This is enhanced by knowing basic definitions of the KOINE in the case of the NT. Also the context historically from which he wrote. Hebraic Roots has helped me beyond normal considerations.

Put yourself in his place. See what he did see when he wrote. This methodology is very basic and commonsensical.

All things must reconcile unless you consider text disparate according to whims of humans. Inerrancy supposes at LEAST the Author behind the author is saying common sense words which point to and indicate Life itself holistically. So then James' "Faith without works is dead" must RECONCILE to anything Paul says which might seem to contradict. Martin Luther even had trouble on this issue, and I don't mind saying it. He thought James was off his rocker for instance.

Paul also said some things that don't reconcile completely.
I wouldn't bring up the topic of the length of peoples hair
for example. It assumes all people have hair. Paul makes
a number of very "human" assumptions.

 

[toLiJC]

Instead of using other's Paradigms of Hermeneutics, a simple placing of oneself IN THE STEAD of the brother writing scripture is much more valuable and efficacious. This is enhanced by knowing basic definitions of the KOINE in the case of the NT. Also the context historically from which he wrote. Hebraic Roots has helped me beyond normal considerations.

Put yourself in his place. See what he did see when he wrote. This methodology is very basic and commonsensical.

All things must reconcile unless you consider text disparate according to whims of humans. Inerrancy supposes at LEAST the Author behind the author is saying common sense words which point to and indicate Life itself holistically. So then James' "Faith without works is dead" must RECONCILE to anything Paul says which might seem to contradict. Martin Luther even had trouble on this issue, and I don't mind saying it. He thought James was off his rocker for instance.

to put yourself in the place of the writers of biblical scriptures and to study ancient languages closely or directly related to them is not enough to be able to understand everything thereof, because:

2 Peter 3:15-16 "our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.",

1 Corinthians 2:12-16 "we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual(i.e. truly spiritual) judgeth all things(i.e. understands all things right), yet he himself is judged of no man(i.e. cannot be proven guilty). For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

there is no contradiction between what St James wrote and what is written in the epistles of St Paul, St Paul also talks about the righteous works, as in Galatians 6:9-10 and 2 Thessalonians 3:13:

"let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.",

"ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing."

but he just laid stress on the difference between the right practice of faith and the practice of spirituality/religiosity by presenting many things form that perspective, because the true faith is based on the display/performance of pure, perfect and all-embracing love in contrast with the spirituality/religiosity where the main stress is on being spiritual/religious, while St James presents the things more generally

also, many biblical terms may have different meanings depending on where they are found in the biblical books and what the relevant context/semantic layers/threads put into the relevant biblical passages/verses where they are used are, for example, the word "meat" in the KJ Bible has the meaning of 'occultism/idolatry' in 1 Corinthians 6:13 and 8:8, while the word "shambles" has the meaning of 'butcher shop' and 'food market' in 1 Corinthians 10:25, and these things are not (so) revealed by the hitherto prevailing dictionaries, encyclopedias and handbooks, even when it comes to (the) christian ones

hypothesis may easily turn out to be a speculation, a doubt or a misbelief

Blessings

 

[nothead]

Paul also said some things that don't reconcile completely.
I wouldn't bring up the topic of the length of peoples hair
for example. It assumes all people have hair. Paul makes
a number of very "human" assumptions.

Bald Jews were in the minority then...figs have natural Rogaine component.

Not so much human but considerate of local customs. Paul's was more bohemian than the little towns surrounding Jerusalem.

 

[nothead]

to put yourself in the place of the writers of biblical scriptures and to study ancient languages closely or directly related to them is not enough to be able to understand everything thereof, because:

2 Peter 3:15-16 "our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.",

1 Corinthians 2:12-16 "we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual(i.e. truly spiritual) judgeth all things(i.e. understands all things right), yet he himself is judged of no man(i.e. cannot be proven guilty). For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

there is no contradiction between what St James wrote and what is written in the epistles of St Paul, St Paul also talks about the righteous works, as in Galatians 6:9-10 and 2 Thessalonians 3:13:

"let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.",

"ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing."

but he just laid stress on the difference between the right practice of faith and the practice of spirituality/religiosity by presenting many things form that perspective, because the true faith is based on the display/performance of pure, perfect and all-embracing love in contrast with the spirituality/religiosity where the main stress is on being spiritual/religious, while St James presents the things more generally

also, many biblical terms may have different meanings depending on where they are found in the biblical books and what the relevant context/semantic layers/threads put into the relevant biblical passages/verses where they are used are, for example, the word "meat" in the KJ Bible has the meaning of 'occultism/idolatry' in 1 Corinthians 6:13 and 8:8, while the word "shambles" has the meaning of 'butcher shop' and 'food market' in 1 Corinthians 10:25, and these things are not (so) revealed by the hitherto prevailing dictionaries, encyclopedias and handbooks, even when it comes to (the) christian ones

hypothesis may easily turn out to be a speculation, a doubt or a misbelief

Blessings

Yes, I only give outlines and not specifics generally. Outlines have to reconcile. Specifics like you said are only partially known or extracted. But so many people can't reconcile the outlines and ignore the specifics which seem to contradict.

And then we end up with theologies off the beaten rails. That old Gospel Train just took the wrong turn.

 

[SkyWriting]

Bald Jews were in the minority then...figs have natural Rogaine component.

Not so much human but considerate of local customs. Paul's was more bohemian than the little towns surrounding Jerusalem.

I agree that it sounds much more like advice from a well traveled
guy, than advice from God. And there are passages that seem to
have been approved by leaders of big churches, like women should
be seen and not heard and they should wear pretty dresses and
keep their pretty hair long.

 

[nothead]

I agree that it sounds much more like advice from a well traveled
guy, than advice from God. And there are passages that seem to
have been approved by leaders of big churches, like women should
be seen and not heard and they should wear pretty dresses and
keep their pretty hair long.

Even if it was advice from God, all Law is still prioritized according to hierarchy...and hair customs do not in any way shape or form state CORE Law. Core Law is HINGED upon Shema first. So then all we do must be for the love of YHWH, ideally.

Paul may have been bald, AND with short hair. But Jesus likely had the local Jewish braided ponytail. So then there you go.

 

[SkyWriting]

Even if it was advice from God, all Law is still prioritized according to hierarchy...and hair customs do not in any way shape or form state CORE Law. Core Law is HINGED upon Shema first. So then all we do must be for the love of YHWH, ideally.Paul may have been bald, AND with short hair. But Jesus likely had the local Jewish braided ponytail. So then there you go.

I had to look that one up.

But I don't find any connection to Shema.
I find this

-------------------------->

 

[nothead]

I had to look that one up.

But I don't find any connection to Shema.
I find this

-------------------------->

I like the Jesus pics with Prince Valiant hair. Sharp nose, a face a woman could love or fall in love with.

If Jesus had a flat nose in his paintings, just THINK how many of us would fall away...all pics of Jesus are of cultural ideals.

The True Jesus may or may not be the Shroud of Turin. In any case I believe he had the radiance of the Shekinah of YHWH upon his countenance.

 

[alex2165]

I TRUST Paul completely, and whatever he ever said or wrote is true and right.

First of all he was selected and appointed by Jesus Christ as an Apostle for Gentiles. (Acts 9.1-15), and he confirmed it himself.



1Corinthians 9.1-2

1.I am not free? Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

2.If to others I am not an Apostle, and least I am to you, you are the seal of my Apostleship in the Lord.



1Corinthinas 15.9

9.I am the least of the Apostles, who am not fit to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the church of GOD.



Galatians 1.1

1.Paul, an Apostle, not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and GOD the Father, Who raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead.



1Timothy 2.7

7.For this I was appointed a herald and an Apostle. I am telling the truth, I am not lying, a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.



Second, what actually the context and meaning of the Paul’s writings? The answer is indicated in his own statement.

1Corinthians 2.5

4.And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit of power,

5.that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of GOD.



Is it truly that the Lord spoke through Paul when he wrote his Epistles? YES!



1Corinthians 14.37-38

37.If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's Commandment.

38.But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.



Does Paul indicate that some of his writings is from GOD and some from him? Yes he did.



1Corinthians 7.10.12.25.40

10.To the married I give this command, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband,

12.To the rest I say, I and not the Lord, that if any believers has a wife who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

25.Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy,

40.But in my judgment she is more blessed if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have a Spirit of GOD.



Should we trusted Paul in everything he said, YES, Should we question his authority, NO.


He is Apostle of Gentiles and shall be trust in his words as we trust in the words of GOD, and no questions ask.


Galatians 2.8.11-15

8.He Who effectually worked for Peter in his Apostleship to the circumcised, effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles.


If GOD worked through Paul in the same way as He worked through Peter and other Apostles, does Paul deserved our full trust in his words? YES he does.

 

[nothead]

I TRUST Paul completely, and whatever he ever said or wrote is true and right.

First of all he was selected and appointed by Jesus Christ as an Apostle for Gentiles. (Acts 9.1-15), and he confirmed it himself.



1Corinthians 9.1-2

1.I am not free? Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

2.If to others I am not an Apostle, and least I am to you, you are the seal of my Apostleship in the Lord.



1Corinthinas 15.9

9.I am the least of the Apostles, who am not fit to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the church of GOD.



Galatians 1.1

1.Paul, an Apostle, not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and GOD the Father, Who raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead.



1Timothy 2.7

7.For this I was appointed a herald and an Apostle. I am telling the truth, I am not lying, a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.



Second, what actually the context and meaning of the Paul’s writings? The answer is indicated in his own statement.

1Corinthians 2.5

4.And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit of power,

5.that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of GOD.



Is it truly that the Lord spoke through Paul when he wrote his Epistles? YES!



1Corinthians 14.37-38

37.If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's Commandment.

38.But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.



Does Paul indicate that some of his writings is from GOD and some from him? Yes he did.



1Corinthians 7.10.12.25.40

10.To the married I give this command, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband,

12.To the rest I say, I and not the Lord, that if any believers has a wife who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

25.Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy,

40.But in my judgment she is more blessed if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have a Spirit of GOD.



Should we trusted Paul in everything he said, YES, Should we question his authority, NO.


He is Apostle of Gentiles and shall be trust in his words as we trust in the words of GOD, and no questions ask.


Galatians 2.8.11-15

8.He Who effectually worked for Peter in his Apostleship to the circumcised, effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles.


If GOD worked through Paul in the same way as He worked through Peter and other Apostles, does Paul deserved our full trust in his words? YES he does.

So what are you saying in context of the thread, sir? I trust Paul completely or COMPLETELY too.

 

[alex2165]

So what are you saying in context of the thread, sir? I trust Paul completely or COMPLETELY too.

I saying in context of the thread this, that no matter what was the background of Paul and his previous views on the Law and the spirituality of it, he still remains the major drive force of understanding and explanation of the essential connectivity between the Law and its spiritual context.

Generally my post was related to the comments made by Tolijc, because I sensed that in his post he questioned the written context of the Bible, and subsequently theology of Paul.

He wrote:

“the systematic Bible reading is not the way to understand the truth in principle, first because the Prophets/Saints that wrote the biblical scriptures explained the truth summarily in a simple language consisting of special terms that are at least figurative for most people, second because the translations of the Bible are usually somewhat imperfect, for most people that participated in its translations were not fully aware of its language, so we have a Scripture that is at least very figurative for us, because the biblical words and phrases are very specific and discreet spiritual terms”

He claimed that he received the enlightenment from the Father and the Son, and he wrote:

“now (without boasting about myself) i understand the truth of God and Jesus Christ as well as the whole Scripture even without reading it, of course thanks to Them, the Father and the Son”

I do not know any instance in the Bible or even heard from any one that the study of the Bible is the waste of time as he put it.

“years ago i went in for theology by systematically studying the Bible, but months after relying on it i realized i waste my time,”

All man of GOD and all the prophets knew the Law, its rituals and it spiritual context, and this is why some of them have been chosen for special assignments by the Lord.

Of course GOD can enlighten anyone He wishes, but I think it goes only with those who made an effort to know and to understand Him through His Laws, Commandments, and Statutes, and through His men like Paul.

He wrote:

“but there was also a deuteronomic part of the law that has somewhat of a misleading character, such as the very typical "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth"(Exodus 21:23-25), because it implies some kinds of infliction of harm on the neighbor, for satan had a power to make a certain part of the/some ordinances be so represented”

Is this comment above about justice of GOD can be considered as enlightenment? If he does not understand justice of GOD, this means he understand nothing in the Bible, its elementary principals of justice, mercy, compassion, love, punishment, and spirituality.

Whom GOD loves him He punishing, and on the human terms, love is the fulfillment of the Law.

Knowledge comes from the Bible, but understanding comes from GOD, and not the opposite.

So trusting the Bible and studying is the only way to receive from GOD understanding and enlightenment.

I hope I explain my post about Paul in the context of the thread, meaning that the context of the Bible and all its prophets and Apostles require full and complete trust in what they said and teach, and no any exceptions should exist.

 

[nothead]

I saying in context of the thread this, that no matter what was the background of Paul and his previous views on the Law and the spirituality of it, he still remains the major drive force of understanding and explanation of the essential connectivity between the Law and its spiritual context.

Generally my post was related to the comments made by Tolijc, because I sensed that in his post he questioned the written context of the Bible, and subsequently theology of Paul.

He wrote:

“the systematic Bible reading is not the way to understand the truth in principle, first because the Prophets/Saints that wrote the biblical scriptures explained the truth summarily in a simple language consisting of special terms that are at least figurative for most people, second because the translations of the Bible are usually somewhat imperfect, for most people that participated in its translations were not fully aware of its language, so we have a Scripture that is at least very figurative for us, because the biblical words and phrases are very specific and discreet spiritual terms”

He claimed that he received the enlightenment from the Father and the Son, and he wrote:

“now (without boasting about myself) i understand the truth of God and Jesus Christ as well as the whole Scripture even without reading it, of course thanks to Them, the Father and the Son”

I do not know any instance in the Bible or even heard from any one that the study of the Bible is the waste of time as he put it.

“years ago i went in for theology by systematically studying the Bible, but months after relying on it i realized i waste my time,”

All man of GOD and all the prophets knew the Law, its rituals and it spiritual context, and this is why some of them have been chosen for special assignments by the Lord.

Of course GOD can enlighten anyone He wishes, but I think it goes only with those who made an effort to know and to understand Him through His Laws, Commandments, and Statutes, and through His men like Paul.

He wrote:

“but there was also a deuteronomic part of the law that has somewhat of a misleading character, such as the very typical "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth"(Exodus 21:23-25), because it implies some kinds of infliction of harm on the neighbor, for satan had a power to make a certain part of the/some ordinances be so represented”

Is this comment above about justice of GOD can be considered as enlightenment? If he does not understand justice of GOD, this means he understand nothing in the Bible, its elementary principals of justice, mercy, compassion, love, punishment, and spirituality.

Whom GOD loves him He punishing, and on the human terms, love is the fulfillment of the Law.

Knowledge comes from the Bible, but understanding comes from GOD, and not the opposite.

So trusting the Bible and studying is the only way to receive from GOD understanding and enlightenment.

I hope I explain my post about Paul in the context of the thread, meaning that the context of the Bible and all its prophets and Apostles require full and complete trust in what they said and teach, and no any exceptions should exist.

So then are you agreeing or disagreeing with the OP sir?

Actually Shema fulfilled in Love is how I look at the Law and Paul.

FROM Shema the Highest Law all things do come into alignment.