Y'all try to get all this settled so we can get back on the subject of Paul. When y'all are fighting it's hard to have a good discussion on the real issue.
Well you’ve completely ignored what so many have said here pertaining to Paul and the “real issue” in the absence of any “fighting” so I doubt that your inability to have a “good discussion” is even remotely related to any perceived “fighting” on your end.
I don't ignore what y'all say. I also once believed if it was in the bible it must be true and I listened to preachers droning on and on about salvation as explained by Paul. Then I got a game warden job that required hours and hours of surveillance. To fill in the time I read the bible a lot and learned a lot about Jesus' teachings and the role of John the Baptist. I could see clearly that the main requirement for salvation was repentance and turning from sin. Jesus made it pretty plain that the law was not abolished and also made plain that obeying the technicalities of the law were not good enough. He also made it plain that you are not to make an ass of the law when he rebuked the Pharisees for complaining about his healing on the sabbath. The parable of the two sons in Matthew 21 is instructive in that one claimed to do his father's will and one refused, but in the end the one that refused actually repented and did the right thing.
Jesus told his listeners that they should do as the Pharisees said but to not do as they do.
Any translation of the bible I read has Paul contradicting the doctrines of Jesus and I remind you that the early Christians in Jerusalem and Asia Minor, the ones closest to Jesus rejected Paul and Jesus had opportunity in The Revelation of Jesus Christ to set the record straight and defend Paul but he did not. In fact he ratified the rejection of false apostles at Ephesus.
I could be wrong but I encourage you to look into this with an open mind. Jesus warned you to "take care that you be not deceived".
Why would you say "Jesus made it pretty clear the law was not abolished." Do you make that assumption based on Jesus saying he came to fulfill the law not abolish it? The only clear thing to me is that you are still clueless what that means. It does not mean the law is still in effect. It is like in a contract. Jesus didn't make the contract void. He fulfilled every term in the contract. You don't go back to a contract and say do this or that when everything in the contract has already been done. It is finished!
