Look, if Paul actually did preach against the Torah, he would be in disagreement with our Lord, who said:
Do not think that I have come to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Torah until all is fulfilled. Therefore whoever shall break one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them , the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. (Mt. 5:17-19)Therefore, if you think that they were actually in disagreement, great. You follow Paul; I'll follow Jesus.
But they weren't. Paul's argument was that we were no longer under the Law in the sense of being judged by it, since we are saved by God's grace as revealed in Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus the Christ, received by trusting in Him (Eph. 2:8-9). Yeshua said the same thing: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes on Him who sent Me has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life" (Jn. 5:24).
However, it stretches credulity to suppose that Sha'ul (Paul), who remained a Pharisee to the end of his days (Ac. 23:6), who himself took a Nazrite oath in order to prove that he still observed and taught Torah and who saw nothing wrong with offering sacrifices in the Temple (Ac. 21:20ff), and who told others to imitate him as he imitated the Messiah (1 Cor. 11:1), would ever say that the Torah was done away with. On the contrary:
For not the hearers of the Torah are just before God, but the doers of the Torah shall be justified. (Rom. 2:13)Sha’ul was never opposed to the Torah, nor to keeping it. What he was opposed to was the misuse of the Torah, in Torah-keeping as an end unto itself, as if one could keep God’s Law well enough to earn the salvation that God has freely offered by His grace.Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the Torah, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the Torah? (Rom. 2:26-27)
Do we then make void the Torah through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (i.e., uphold) the Torah. (Rom. 3:1)
Therefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (Rom. 7:12)
For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Ro 7:14)
For I delight in the Torah of God according to the inward man. (Rom. 7:22)
For Christ is the end (telos, goal) of the Torah for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:4)
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Cor. 7:19)
Therefore the Torah was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24)
But we know that the Torah is good if one uses it lawfully . . . (1 Ti. 1:8)
All Scripture (including the Torah) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Ti. 3:16-17)
Now, it is true that the early believers didn't require Gentiles to become circumcised, which would have put them not simply under the Torah, but also under those parts of the Torah which only circumcised Jews were required to keep (e.g., kosher), as well as under the "Oral Torah," the traditions of the Jews that eventually formed the basis of the Talmud. They also preached that since the Jews, who knew what God's requirements were and had been shown such a great grace in receiving God's forgiveness in the Messiah, should likewise show grace to those who had not known God's commands but who had also been saved by faith in the Messiah instead of marginalizing those who weren't "Jewish enough."
But the Apostles themselves kept the Torah, and based all their teachings on it.
They certainly didn't reject the Torah to replace it with another "Law" of their own making. They didn't move the Sabbath to Sunday, they didn't pray to saints, they kept all the Feastdays of the Lord which God Himself gave at Sinai. All that came later, after the failed 70 AD and 135 AD rebellions which made Jews persona non grata in the Empire, and built up even more rapidly when the tables turned and the pagans were forced into the Church, bringing many of their old traditions with them: Saturnalia, which became Christmas; Easter, which replaced Passover; praying in the direction of the rising sun, an overemphasis of the idea of the Mother of God, etc.
So long as Rome continues to teach people to disobey even the least of the commandments of the Torah, it is not teaching the doctrine or traditions of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
To be fair, most Protestant denominations are in the same boat--but they don't make the claim that they are the sole guardians of the supposed traditions of the Apostles.
Paul did all as you describe because at that time, Christianity was a sect of Judaism. The Apostles continued to worship in the synagogue. It was only after the fall of Jerusalem where the Jews felt it necessary to come together and claim the Christians as heretics in a forceful manner. Thus, it is not unusual to find Peter or Paul at the synagogue worshiping. BUT, they also continued to break the bread. There is a transition period that I see here.
Also, Paul calls the Law a divine teacher. He uses the example of the master's slave who watches over the master's son and ensuring he is taught. But once the child is taught, the slave is no longer above the child. Sorry, I don't have time to look up the verses I am thinking about - it is time to plan T-Day and all of that.
Also, don't confuse the "torah" with the "law". They are not necessarily the same thing. Sometimes, Torah applies to ALL the traditions passed down, both oral and written, and other times, it refers to the Decalogue. I highly doubt that Paul refers positively to the traditions of hand-washing as important to being a Christian.
Sha’ul was never opposed to the Torah, nor to keeping it. What he was opposed to was the misuse of the Torah, in Torah-keeping as an end unto itself, as if one could keep God’s Law well enough to earn the salvation that God has freely offered by His grace.
I agree.
They didn't move the Sabbath to Sunday, they didn't pray to saints, they kept all the Feastdays of the Lord which God Himself gave at Sinai. All that came later, after the failed 70 AD and 135 AD
I don't find any support for that claim. When refering to these practices, the later Church Fathers consider these practices as "from the Apostles". Perhaps this is not meant literal - but there is ultimately no proof that the third generation made up all of that. That is pure speculation based on an argument from absence within the Scriputures. Note that the Scriptures are not the totality of Christian revelation. This was NOT believed by ANYONE up until Luther.
So long as Rome continues to teach people to disobey even the least of the commandments of the Torah, it is not teaching the doctrine or traditions of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
Rome teaches that hand-washing ceremonies are not important or necessary for Christians for the purpose of salvation. As an ethnical custom, if one is Jewish, so be it. But we are free of such Laws. They do not save. Thus, we are not required to do them. Since the Church has the power to bind and loose, the argument falls on deaf ears. The Church in Acts 15 already began to "loosen" those dietary rules of the "Torah". The Apostles...
They realized that we are not bound to the Laws of the Torah, but to the Law of Christ. Some of the Law of Christ matches the Torah (such as loving thy neighbor and loving God), but we don't follow "love thy neighbor" because it is in the Torah, but because CHRIST gave us this Law. Christ FULFILLS the Law, not abrogates it.
Regards