[Petronski]

He remained completely observant, as is evident in all of the epistles.

That's an interpretation.

[editor-surveyor]

Read the word; no interpretation is necessary, since it fully describes what they did. There is no room for error.

[safisoft]

He remained completely observant, as is evident in all of the epistles.

Petronski said: That's an interpretation.

Only to the illiterate. Paul says with his own words, in plain words with clear Greek present tense, "I AM a Jew..." I AM a Pharisee... I AM of the tribe of Benjamin..." You will find the present tense in the Greek texts, and even the Jerome's Vulgate. After all, even a whacked-out monk like Jerome can read that was main defense before the crowd in Acts 22, before Felix, and his planned defense in Rome.

Please, interpret these plain words (Do words even mean things to Catholics? How is it you can be conservative constitutionalists?):

Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the Law. (and he ain't talking "Christian Law" unless it madates circumcision on the eighth day, because that is the context) Acts 21:24

There, now you can argue with Paul and with James. In Acts 28 Paul claims complete observance. In Acts 21, James claims Paul's complete observance. To not acknowledge plain text, or to simply provide "that's your interpretation" shows the immaturity of your position.