[Forest Keeper]

However, I do believe that [Paul] initiated it issue. In effect, they did break God's Laws when they dispensed with circumcision. Removal of dietary restrictions was 'justified'with an account of +Peter's 'vision,' while in some sort of a "trans," of God allowing it. In doing so, the Church created a new religion, with +Paul as its author. We could argue that this was the religion the Jews should have been following all along, but that's another story.

It certainly is another story, and a critical one. :) As we have seen, Paul came to preach the Gospel of Christ. Is circumcision necessary for salvation? Paul takes care of it in Galatians:

Gal 5:6 : 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Gal 6:15 : 15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

See also:

Col 3:9-11 : 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

So, do you think that Paul is correct here, or is he breaking God's laws?

By asserting that God did not fully reveal Himself to the Jews, we can assert that Christianity is only a "more perfect" (I am borrowing this oxymoron from a very famous state document) form of the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, that's not why God told the prophet He would give a New Covenant.

Well, God certainly revealed Himself enough to save the OT righteous. Christ said He came to fulfill the OT. Part of that fulfillment can be found in Paul's further discussion on circumcision:

Rom 2:29 : 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

[kosta50]

As we have seen, Paul came to preach the Gospel of Christ. Is circumcision necessary for salvation? Paul takes care of it in Galatians:

Gal 5:6 : 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love

Christ never taught that. This is where +Paul is literally building a new religion.

So, do you think that Paul is correct here, or is he breaking God's laws?

He is teaching 'his' gospel, because that was never mentioned by Christ.

Part of that fulfillment can be found in Paul's further discussion on circumcision: Rom 2:29 : 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God

+Paul is re-interpreting Judaism. The "written code" are Laws given to Moses by God. It was not man-made.

We have here the authority Moses claims from his encounter with God on Mt Sinai, and +Paul who claims his authoirty from an encounter to Damascus. +Paul is saying the Law is worthless. That was "new" Judaism.