You are correct that Yeshua HaMashiach never advocated abandoning the Torah; just the contrary (Mat. 5:17-19).
But you are incorrect that Sha'ul did.
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's apparent opposition to the Torah was not an opposition to the Torah itself, but to a misuse of it that some elements were trying to foist on the infant Ekklesia: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 Co. 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)
First, the idea that circumcision--which in a first century context meant becoming Jewish via a rabbinical ceremony--was required for salvation; i.e., that one had to be Jewish to be saved.
And second, the idea that keeping the Torah--and in particular, keeping the rabbinical customs as part and parcel of keeping Torah--was a prerequisite for salvation.
Sha'ul opposed those ideas not on the basis of some new revelation, but on the basis of the Torah itself. Therefore, he was not anti-Torah, but very pro-Torah.
More importantly, if they were all inspired, and filled with Spirit, how could they be in disagreement?
Where were they in disagreement? Sha'ul rebuked Kefa (Peter) for an ill-considered action in distancing himself from the Gentiles at one point, but remember that Kefa and Ya'akov (James) both agreed with him, not only at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) but also later (Acts 21)!
There is no other author of post-Pentecost Christianity other than +Paul.
Your Bible stops at Hebrews? Interesting. Mine has three letters and a prophetic vision by Yochanan (John), two letters from Kefa, one from Ya'akov, and one from Y'hudah (Jude). I also have a history recorded by the companion of Sha'ul which tells us in some detail how the Apostles and the Jerusalem Ekkesia--the one closest in time, space, and culture to our Lord Yeshua--lived and practiced, and it tells us that they worshiped daily in one accord in the Temple (Acts 2:36), that the issue of Jews keeping the Torah was never even an issue (Acts 15), that it was not uncommon for even "optional" parts of the Torah like Nazrite vows to be undertaken (Acts 21:23-24) or for the requisite animal sacrifices for such vows to be made (v. 26).
More importantly, my Bible has the words of our Lord Himself, recorded in four Gospel accounts--and He never opposed the Torah, only human tradition piled on top of God's pure Word.
If Sha'ul--who never walked with the Lord Yeshua during His earthly ministry, and who started out opposed to Him--stood alone among all the Apostles--the rest of whom were taught personally by the Lord in the flesh--and we cannot even find this supposed anomia in the Messiah . . . well, guess who's in the wrong then. I guess you'd best go find an Ebionite congregation to worship in.
However, the fact is that Sha'ul was not in opposition either to the rest of the Apostles or to the Torah. You've been misreading him.
Now, in regards to post #7248, you write, It wasn't just circumcision; it was entire Judaism! You tell me how and why? Christ never said the Law did not apply because those who believe in Him are under grace. +Paul did. Justified under grace is not Judaism.
You obviously don't know the first thing about Judaism! First of all, where did Sha'ul get the idea that one is justified by faith rather than by the Law? Genesis 15:6--that's right, in the Torah! How then could it even enter your mind that grace and Judaism, built upon the Torah, are mutually exclusive?
But let us look at what the Jews say about their own beliefs. The basis of a Jew's salvation, in the minds of the rabbis, has never been that he keeps Torah, but on the basis of his fellowship in Israel with God, because of Israel's covenant with God. Hence why the Mishnah says,
All Israelites have a share in the world to come, as it is said, "your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified." (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedron 11:1, folio 90A)In Shabbat 119B, R. Joshua b. Levi points out that God annuls the retribution that He would be just to pour out on His people when they offer themselves to Him willingly. Gee, doesn't that sound familiar?
In the Avinu Malkeynu ("Our Father, Our King"), traditionally sung on Yom Kippur, the Jew prays, "Be merciful unto us / For we have no deeds / Commending us unto You / Be merciful, save us, we pray." Hmm, nothing there about winning God's favor by keeping the Torah--in fact, we see the admission that only by God's unmerited mercy (grace) does one have a hope.
Now what is true is that modern Judaism--and I have no doubt this was going on in the first century as well--tends to emphasize a "merit system" of salvation. I suspect that this is in part an overreaction against the Christian emphasis on faith, just as Christian anti-Torah attitudes are an overreaction against the synagogue. However, the fact remains that according to Judaism's own oldest traditions, one cannot separate salvation from God's grace exhibited in the forgiveness of sins.
Now, for some friendly advice: Put down Paul for a while; pretend that those pages don't even exist in your Bible. Then go study the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospel, and the other Epistles with all reverence and prayerfulness, asking God for wisdom (Jas. 1:5). Do a little historical study on the Jewish culture of the first century. Then return to Paul with fresh eyes, and see for yourself if he is really against the Torah, or if perhaps he was simply trying to return to a pure Torah.
I am certain, he said the Christians are not under the Law but under grace. In that same verse he said that because of this sin will not be their master (what a thing to say! Did God give Jews the Law so that sin may be their master?)
Where were they in disagreement?
Apparently they did not all have the same 'visions' (yet), so it took some gentle persuasion to resolve their inspired differences.
How then could it even enter your mind that grace and Judaism, built upon the Torah, are mutually exclusive?
Because there is no verse in the OT that says so? Judaism does not believe man needs to be saved. One does not even have to believe. If man is 'saved' it is because he was compassionate and merciful; certainly not by faith alone (as +Paul teaches).
In a beautiful simplicity, Judaism teaches that man is made acceptable to God, by his deeds, regardless if he is observant or not.
You speak of pre-Christ Judaism as a monolithic religion. If anything, Judaism was a sectarian religion, with widely divergent sects teaching and preaching very different stories. Of all these only the Pharisees survived and morphed into rabbinical Judaism known to us. Their counterparts in the Sadduccee ranks denied salvation and resurrection, immortality of the soul, and so on. You treat Pharisaical Judaism as the only true Judaism. I do not agree with that.
This is not a discussion about Judaism, but about +Paul 'freeing' Christians from the Law. Did God make the Law so that man can dispose of it?
Whatever you say, fact remains that Christians by the end of the 1st century did not consider themselves Jews and, in fact, while the Apostles were still walking the earth did everything to distance themslevs from the 'hypocrites' (as the 1st century Didache refers to the Jews).
Your Bible stops at Hebrews?
Between AD 44 and 65, +Paul was visiting Cappadocia, Ephesus, Greece and Rome preaching 'his gospel.' The eyewitness Gospels were not even written by that time. By the time +Peter arrived in Rome the Christians were not identified as the Jews but as an altogether different religion. To say that anyone but +Paul is responsible for that is naïve at best.
Very solid advice, truly pleasant counsel. Thank you for including me in the posting of these comments.