Acts 21 proves that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher

their faith in Christ fully established, or just their belief in him? That is a much more important question than you might think, but if you think of some of teh discussions I am having on these threads right now, I am discussing scripturewith people with a lot of belief, but no real faith. Why do I say that? Because they do not have sufficient faith in Christ to accept that, if they do indeed rely on him, he will keep his promis and strengthen them through holy spirit. If those Jews who were arguing for the observance of the Law had any solid faith in Jesus and in his sacrifice, why did they feel they needed to obey the Law? It really didn't sense. Hence the decision of the Apostles and Older men as announced in Acts 15, where they only "saved" three elements of the Alw as necessary to observe. Not the whole law. However, back to the theme of this debate. I have already shown you through the scripture at Acts 15, that in saying that the Jews should refrain from relying on works of law for salvation Paul was not teaching a different kind of Christianity. Where does it say that they were learning form other Apostles to keep the Law? I have seen no examples of it. Even James does not at any point in the scripture at Acts 21, say that it was necessary to keep the law, though at that time it was still possible to. However all the Apostles knew that it was very shortly going to be completely impossible to keep the Law anyway, since the Temple was to be destroyed. So why would any Apostle teach that ones should? Also, where does it say that the other Apostles in Jerusalem were keeping the law? It was those very Apostles and older men who, 6 chapters earlier, had declared that only three elements of the law needed to be observed, after having been called on to settle that very question supposedly once and for all time. No James was only acting to prevent the spread of pernicious rumours. Incidentally, where in that whole chapter does James actually tell Paul he is wrong? Absoultely nowhere, again James merely asks him to quash the rumours so as not to stumble the Jews, somehting again whihc Paul was eager to comly with. 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 23 All things are lawful; but not all things are advantageous. All things are lawful; but not all things build up. 24 Let each one keep seeking, not his own [advantage], but that of the other person. 25 Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; 26 for "to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it." 27 If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. 28 But if anyone should say to YOU: "This is something offered in sacrifice," do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. 29 "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person"s conscience? 30 If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks? 31 Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God"s glory. 32 Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, 33 even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved. Notice particularly, the first two verses of that scripture above, then verse 29, then the last 3 verses. Paul explained, that, there was nothing wrong with following the Law as such, as long as it didn't become what you rely on for salvation. because whilst it might be lawful, there was no advantage in it. However Paul, and all who follow Christ, was more than happy to observe the law for the sake of the consciences of those Jews who argued for it, whilst at the same time trying to strengthen their faith in Christ.