ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Shasta]

1Mind1Spirit;4541521]John was given a command that he would yet prophecy to many peoples and kings.

Which also speaks of an earlier writing, as this command would not have been issued to a man over 100 years old.

11 And I was told, “You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and languages and kings” (Revelation 10:11 ESV)

The Greek proposition epi which is translated "before" in the KJB should, in this be context, be more accurately be translated: "about," "as to," or "concerning."

http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/10-11.htm

This is totally false.

The isle of Patmos was established as a prison isle of Rome over 100 years before Jesus was born.

Banishment instead of death was not a later concept.

Caligula banished Herod Antipas.

Pardon me, I misread one of my sources. Banishing of political enemies to islands was common, however,

“history knows of no one who was punished in this way who was not a fairly influential Roman citizen”
(A Companion to the New Testament, p 786, A.E. Harvey)

Taking this policy into account, banishing a member of a poor minority sect of Judaism hardly seems probable. Later, though, when Christianity had spread across the Empire and could not escape the notice of the Emperor, banishment of Christians was more likely to have been practiced. Still, Nero seemed less inclined to banish Christians than to use them to light his parties and to feed them to the lions. Domitian used banishment extensively although the extent to which he banished Christians I do not know.

Yes, Herod stretched forth his hand to vex the church.

He killed John's brother James.

When he saw that pleased the Jews he sought to take and kill Peter also.

He could not please the Jews by killing John.

It would have been taboo to cutoff Zebedee's name.

So John was most likely banished at this time to Patmos.

Your theory that Agrippa banished John all the way to Patmos just so that he, would not be resented for killing all of Zebedee’s clan is highly speculative and, seems to me, somewhat contrived. It makes me wonder what doctrinal presupposition motivates you to establish such an early date for the Apocalypse. Why would the Jews care what happened to John's clan anyway when they saw their nation was in danger of incurring God's wrath because of the idolatrous Christians and Jewish Apostates? Antipas' violence was an expression of their own hatred for the truth. A hatred inflamed with rage and murder is not likely to allow for mercy.

In your narrative, John is arrested and shipped off to Patmos during the persecution of Agrippa which was sometime after 43 AD. On the island, John has an incredible vision. The events must have happened rather quickly, for Agrippa died before 44 AD. During that brief time, Peter was hunted, arrested, jailed, and freed (but not recaptured). Then Agrippa abruptly dies and the persecution stops. Then John is brought back across the ocean to the Land where he is joyfully reunited with the Christian community. You would think that such an occasion would receive some coverage in the Book of Acts; especially if John came back proclaiming all the strange things he saw in the Revelation but nothing was recorded either about his exile, his return or his vision. Had the writer of Acts been a journalist he would have been fired for missing a headline story.

Actually we cannot prove when the churches of Asia were evangelized.

I would say upon the persecution by Paul when the church was scattered.

It was Paul's custom to go where the Gospel had not been preached.

He was not allowed to go there at first.:think:

You say that the Churches of Asia Minor must have been evangelized by the scattering Christians during persecutions. Apparently did happen but the full scope and extent of this dispersion is impossible to determine. We do know about Ephesus, though, and that Paul started a Church there in 52 AD (Acts 18:18-21). However, Ephesus, as it is presented in Acts, does not impress me as being a city with a thriving Christian community when Paul first arrives. How is it possible that John wrote a letter to a well taught and organized Ephesian Church years before Paul laid the foundation there?

The Church Father Irenaeus (120-202 AD) grew up in Asia Minor and was trained by Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna. Irenaeus had this to say about Polycarp.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp
(Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 3, section 4- Irenaeus)

This is to show the quality of Irenaeus' sources of information.

Polycarp, who lived from 69-150AD also grew up in Asia Minor. Since he had been a child he had known the Apostle John. John had trained him for the ministry. Irenaeus made the following comment about those days:

All the clergy who is Asia came in contact with John, the Lord's disciple, testify that John taught the truth to them; for he remained with them till Trajan's time.
(Against Heresies, Book 2 - Irenaeus)

Since Irenaeus was from Asia Minor he would have grown up hearing people talk about John his works, his teaching, his exile, his Revelation and his ministry to the Church. Here is what Irenaeus said about John’s work at Ephesus:

…the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
(Against Heresies 3.3 - Irenaeus)

This makes sense with the Book of Acts. Paul was the first to evangelize Ephesus. Much later John moved there built upon his foundation just as others did at Corinth.

“If it were necessary for his name (the name of the antichrist) to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation (John). For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”
(Against Heresies, Book 5 - Irenaeus)

Irenaeus says he lived barely one generation beyond the time when the Revelation was written which was at the end of the reign of Domitian. If he lived that close to the time then Polycarp would have been able to read it when it was first written.

The testimony of believers who lived in the same geographical region who knew John or knew others who had known him provides evidence for a later date for Revelation. More importantly, though, it supports the idea that John, in his later years, ministered to a predominantly Gentile Church in Ephesus

I find it interesting that even Satan in his urantia book knew the importance to his cause to fabricate a third younger brother for James and John.:think:

I would not venture to guess what Satan's specific strategies are in this book.

 

[Shasta]

That's funny. The gospel of Christ that is the power of God to save us is not in Acts 10!

But Peter's gospel had the power to save the Gentiles that heard and believed it. What specifically makes what Peter said NOT the gospel of Christ?

 

[heir]

But Peter's gospel had the power to save the Gentiles that heard and believed it. What specifically makes what Peter said NOT the gospel of Christ?

If you knew what the gospel of Christ is, you would see the difference. Study and rightly divide the word of truth! 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV

And get it straight, those Gentiles weren't saved. They shall be.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

 

[heir]

But Peter's gospel had the power to save the Gentiles that heard and believed it. What specifically makes what Peter said NOT the gospel of Christ?

What Peter preached to them

Acts 10:35 KJV

What Paul preached Titus 3:5 KJV

Things that are different are not the same.

 

[heir]

:rotfl:

He's a :kookoo:

 

[Clete]

I'm not sure if your looking for a reply, but I see James 2 and Romans 4 to be in total agreement. No need to pick one or the other.

I cannot see how that is possible.

In fact, it is not possible. Not without reading your doctrine into the text. The words themselves are in direct contradiction; they both say and mean opposite things.

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[g] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.​

There is no way to make those two passages agree without forcing one or the other to be discussing something other than salvation.

The passages say opposite things and both passages are both 100% correct because Abraham was the father of both groups. A topic Bob spends some time discussing in The Plot.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Clete,

Have you entered the Holy Place by the blood of Jesus?

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Well how about it Clete.

LA

The only way to enter is to lose your flesh.
Clete was crucified, buried, and risen with Christ.

Eph 2:6 (KJV)

Were you? Well how about it LA the Great Judge of All Mankind?

 

[Wick Stick]

How many missionaries today can say that; fit the bill?

Missionary = Apostle. How many left/leave Jerusalem [today] without receiving the "unction to function"?

Very very few. Although I believe missionary = evangelist, not apostle.

Interestingly, I met a pastor from Tibet several years ago whose testimony was that Jesus appeared to him in his bedroom and spoke to him personally, and told him to take the gospel to the Tibetan people.

I believe that would actually qualify him as an apostle, which sort of blows my mind and shreds some of my theology.

Jarrod

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The only way to enter is to lose your flesh.
Clete was crucified, buried, and risen with Christ.

Eph 2:6 (KJV)

Were you? Well how about it LA the Great Judge of All Mankind?

You are the one doing the judging, fleshy man.

LA

 

[turbosixx]

I cannot see how that is possible.

In fact, it is not possible. Not without reading your doctrine into the text. The words themselves are in direct contradiction; they both say and mean opposite things.

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[g] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.​

There is no way to make those two passages agree without forcing one or the other to be discussing something other than salvation.

The passages say opposite things and both passages are both 100% correct because Abraham was the father of both groups. A topic Bob spends some time discussing in The Plot.

This is hard to explain in a forum but here it goes. If we look at why Paul says what he did in chapter 4, we can see that they are in agreement. When Jesus offered himself as the perfect sacrifice, that ended the law of Moses. Man must now approach God through Jesus the High Priest and his sacrifice. The Jews can’t imagine being right with God apart from circumcision and apart from the law. So Paul sets out to tell them there’s a better way apart from the law and circumcision.

He starts by telling them the law gave them no advantage over the Gentile. All men are under sin.
Rom. 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;


He then tells them that being a Jew and relying on the law, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, by breaking it they dishonor God.
Rom. 2:23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?


Paul then tells them now apart from the law God has shown his righteousness in Christ and it’s for all, not just the Jews.
3:21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Just like we see Paul preaching in Acts 28, Christ is apart from the law but the law and prophets testify Jesus is the Christ.

So then Paul contrasts the law of Moses and the law of Christ. Jews boasted in the law but there is no boasting in Christ.
3:27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith


So to prove that man can be righteous apart from the law and without being circumcised Paul uses Abraham as an example.
4:10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;


Then he goes on for the next several chapters to show that the law brought death but faith in Christ brings life. He then tells them they have been released from the law.
Rom. 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead,….6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.


There is a lot more I can say but this is long enough and hopefully show you my paradigm. People are quick to see “works” but overlook “of the Law”.
3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

 

[Clete]

This is hard to explain in a forum but here it goes. If we look at why Paul says what he did in chapter 4, we can see that they are in agreement. When Jesus offered himself as the perfect sacrifice, that ended the law of Moses. Man must now approach God through Jesus the High Priest and his sacrifice. The Jews can’t imagine being right with God apart from circumcision and apart from the law. So Paul sets out to tell them there’s a better way apart from the law and circumcision.

He starts by telling them the law gave them no advantage over the Gentile. All men are under sin.
Rom. 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;


He then tells them that being a Jew and relying on the law, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, by breaking it they dishonor God.
Rom. 2:23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?


Paul then tells them now apart from the law God has shown his righteousness in Christ and it’s for all, not just the Jews.
3:21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Just like we see Paul preaching in Acts 28, Christ is apart from the law but the law and prophets testify Jesus is the Christ.

So then Paul contrasts the law of Moses and the law of Christ. Jews boasted in the law but there is no boasting in Christ.
3:27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith


So to prove that man can be righteous apart from the law and without being circumcised Paul uses Abraham as an example.
4:10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;


Then he goes on for the next several chapters to show that the law brought death but faith in Christ brings life. He then tells them they have been released from the law.
Rom. 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead,….6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.


There is a lot more I can say but this is long enough and hopefully show you my paradigm. People are quick to see “works” but overlook “of the Law”.
3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

I do not deny that Paul is talking about the law. That's the theme of his whole ministry. You could have established this by quoting a single verse. This does not address the issue.

The fact is the Paul says that Abraham was saved by faith apart from works and James says that Abraham was saved by his works. You cannot be more opposite than that, Turbosixx! Why bother even trying to suggest otherwise? It's so clearly, painfully obvious! And if you'll forgive a bit of snarkyness... Genesis 15 comes long before Genesis 22!

The reason the two passages aren't in conflict with one another is because they are not talking to the same audience! The book of James is specifically addressed to the Jews! In that context it makes perfect sense to say what he said because the law was not optional for them. They could not be saved apart from performing the works of the law! If the refused to obey the law they were cut off. If they trusted God AND obeyed His commands then they would be saved. Their sin would be held in abeyance until propitiation was made at which time their sins would be cleansed and remembered no more. That's the way salvation worked prior to the cross. After the cross it worked the exact same way except the cross was behind them and so no longer would they have to make sacrifices and observe the laws associated with the things that Christ fulfilled at Calvary nor would that be held in Abraham's bosom after death.

The proof, aside from simply reading James 2, is that the Twelve did not forsake the Law.

I Corinthians 7:18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

Acts 21:17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

Galatians 2:12 for before certain men came from James, he [Peter] would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nick M]

Matthew 19

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

And Paul's response, which he received from revelation of the risen Lord Jesus Christ;

Romans 7

9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.

This is why many say Paul is false. Because they believe in red letters, but not the resurrection.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The only way to enter is to lose your flesh.

I have been on the road.

Do you claim to have entered the Holy Place by the blood of Jesus?

Also do you claim you are seated with Christ in the most Holy Place?

LA

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I have been on the road.

Do you claim to have entered the Holy Place by the blood of Jesus?

Also do you claim you are seated with Christ in the most Holy Place?

LA

Eph 2:6 (KJV)

Were you?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You are the one doing the judging, fleshy man.

LA

Is it your flesh that causes you to issue death threats to posters, or the Spirit?

 

[Clete]

Matthew 19

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

And Paul's response, which he received from revelation of the risen Lord Jesus Christ;

Romans 7

9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.

This is why many say Paul is false. Because they believe in red letters, but not the resurrection.

This is true! Many people do reject Paul outright. Messianic Jews in particular but not just them. And interestingly they use the fact that the rest of the whole New Testament is against Paul. They'll quote proof texts like Acts 10:35, James 2:14 and I John 2:4 as evidence that the "real Apostles" taught the "gospel according to Jesus" and they reject Paul on that basis.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[chrysostom]

This is true! Many people do reject Paul outright.

those who reject paul outright
are
few in number
and
they are wackos
but
many do reject your interpretation of what paul said
and
that is a reasonable position

 

[Cross Reference]

Christ Jesus … is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” When we realize that Christ is made all this to us, the boundless joy of God begins; wherever the joy of God is not present, the death sentence is at work.

"Christ Jesus … is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” When we realize that Christ is made all this to us, the boundless joy of God begins; wherever the joy of God is not present, the death sentence is at work.

Hebrews 10:14 (KJV 1900)
"For by one offering he [Jesus] hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." . .

1 Corinthians 1:30–31 (KJV 1900)
"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

Romans 5:1 (KJV 1900)
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"

..........no Paul in any of that!

 

[Nick M]

many do reject your interpretation of what paul

So tell us what Paul really means when says he who has died has been freed from sin. Tell us what he really means. We are waiting....for years now.

 

[turbosixx]

I do not deny that Paul is talking about the law. That's the theme of his whole ministry. You could have established this by quoting a single verse. This does not address the issue.

The fact is the Paul says that Abraham was saved by faith apart from works and James says that Abraham was saved by his works. You cannot be more opposite than that, Turbosixx! Why bother even trying to suggest otherwise? It's so clearly, painfully obvious! And if you'll forgive a bit of snarkyness... Genesis 15 comes long before Genesis 22!

The reason the two passages aren't in conflict with one another is because they are not talking to the same audience! The book of James is specifically addressed to the Jews! In that context it makes perfect sense to say what he said because the law was not optional for them. They could not be saved apart from performing the works of the law! If the refused to obey the law they were cut off. If they trusted God AND obeyed His commands then they would be saved. Their sin would be held in abeyance until propitiation was made at which time their sins would be cleansed and remembered no more. That's the way salvation worked prior to the cross. After the cross it worked the exact same way except the cross was behind them and so no longer would they have to make sacrifices and observe the laws associated with the things that Christ fulfilled at Calvary nor would that be held in Abraham's bosom after death.

The proof, aside from simply reading James 2, is that the Twelve did not forsake the Law.

I Corinthians 7:18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

Acts 21:17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

Galatians 2:12 for before certain men came from James, he [Peter] would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
​

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sorry, I’ve been told before that works “of the law” was not talking about the law of Moses.

After the cross it worked the exact same way except the cross was behind them and so no longer would they have to make sacrifices and observe the laws associated with the things that Christ fulfilled at Calvary nor would that be held in Abraham's bosom after death.

Of course, my paradigm says different. I see Galatians as the best argument that the law of Moses and the law of Christ are incompatible but let’s start in Romans.

If we look at the language, it’s clear the law was no longer binding to those in Christ.
6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Galatians is dealing with circumcision being added to the gospel and Paul gets on to Peter because he is dividing Christ based on circumcision like it was under the law.
Acts 10:28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him;
Paul then says 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

He then shows them the law was added but it didn’t change the promise. The law was added so man could see his sins.
Gal. 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions,
Rom. 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."
In seeing their sins they saw they were dead and in need of a savior.
Rom. 7:9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

The law wasn’t the promise and it wasn’t meant to continue. I was only in effect until Christ.
Gal. 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

There is no division in Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile, just Christian.
3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus….28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Chapter 4 uses Sarah and Hagar as an example of the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, one a slave and one free. Christians are free.

Chapter 5 makes it perfectly clear, that no one can be in Christ and follow the law.
5:2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
No one can be saved outside of Christ.
Gal. 2:16..... since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Those verses us used do not show anyone teaching the law or instruction to keep it. The apostles were doing the same thing Paul as doing, picking battles. There are verse where Paul is seen keeping the law of Moses so that in itself should prove the law of Moses is no longer binding.