[safisoft]

In a touching, and yet ill-informed "loyalty to the church" papertyger and Petronski are stubbornly sticking to a point that Roman Catholic scholars themselves affirm: Paul remained an observant Jew.

From the New Jerusalem Bible (I assume even Catholics might have a Catholic Bible?):

They gave glory to G-d when they heard this. Then they said, 'You see, brother, how thousands of Jews have now become believers, all of them staunch upholders of the Law; and what they have heard about you is that you instruct all Jews living among the gentiles to break away from Moses, authorising them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. What is to be done? A crowd is sure to gather, for they will hear that you have come. So this is what we suggest that you should do; we have four men here who are under a vow; take these men along and be purified with them and pay all the expenses connected with the shaving of their heads. This will let everyone know there is no truth in the reports they have heard about you, and that you too observe the Law by your way of life. Acts 21:20-24

Likewise Ananias of Damascus, where Paul went after he was blinded. Quoting Paul,

'Someone called Ananias, a devout follower of the Law and highly thought of by all the Jews living there,came to see me; he stood beside me and said, "Brother Saul, receive your sight." Instantly my sight came back and I was able to see him. Acts 22:12-13

So now, you can argue with Luke who told us of Paul, you can argue with Paul, you can argue with James, you can argue with Paul about Ananias, and you can argue with your own "church" scholars. I am done arguing with those that refuse to plainly read even their own "church" position.

[Petronski]

I have no argument with Sts. Paul and James.

I simply reject your misinterpretations and half-quotes.

The thread reflects your tactics, misstatements and misinterpretations quite well, which would provide all the incentive you would need to run away.

[Petronski]

As for scholars of the Catholic Church, here is Haydock:

Act 21:21 To forsake Moses. In the Greek, to depart or apostatize from Moses and the law. This is more than was true. For St. Paul circumcised Timothy, (chap. xvi.) and did not absolutely hinder converts who had been Jews, from practising the Jewish ceremonies. (Witham) --- There is a manifest falsity in this accusation against St. Paul. He had never commanded or advised the Jews, to whom he had preached, to renounce the law, abandon the ceremonies of Moses, or reject the ancient customs of the nation. He had never hindered any one from following in this respect the bias of his inclinations. He had indeed defended the liberty of the converts from these ceremonies; he had taught that Christ had taken away the necessity of this yoke; but he left them at liberty still to carry it if they pleased. (Calmet) --- For these things were not then to be sought after as necessary, nor yet to be condemned as sacrilegious. The law of Moses at that time was dead, but not deadly. (St. Augustine, ep. lxxxii.) --- These considerations will sufficiently explain the apostle's motive for submitting on this occasion to one of their ceremonies. He became all to all, that he might gain all to Christ. (Haydock)