The END of Sacrifices?

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, Robert said:

Lev chapter 23 is found in the Pentateuch.  This chapter is strictly ceremonial.

You (and the traditions of others) have designated parts of God's law as "ceremonial", but that was not the question.  The question is, where does Scripture itself designate any of God's law as "ceremonial"? 

The man-made system that makes people think that they can designate some laws as "moral" and others as "ceremonial" is not taught in Scripture -- it is merely a faulty "lens" through which they (mis)interpret Scripture.

4 hours ago, Robert said:

 In the NT Paul touches on this ceremonial law in Col 2:16,17

As you know, the words "ceremonial law" do not appear in Col 2:16,17 (nor anywhere else in Scripture).  Verse 17 deals with "dogma", a Greek word that is never used in the Greek Old Testament to refer to any of God's law (or instructions).  In Scripture, dogma always refers to man-made rules and decrees.  In the context of Colossians 2, verse 16 can be understood to uphold God's law against the condemnations of the Gnostics and ascetics.

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

You (and the traditions of others) have designated parts of God's law as "ceremonial", but that was not the question.  The question is, where does Scripture itself designate any of God's law as "ceremonial"? 

Are you looking for the word "ceremonial"?  How about a sentence that describes the word?

 "These (i.e., food/drink sacrifices/Sabbaths/holy days) are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."

 

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Verse 17 deals with "dogma", a Greek word that is never used in the Greek Old Testament to refer to any of God's law (or instructions).  In Scripture, dogma always refers to man-made rules and decrees.

Oops. I was thinking of verse 14, not verse 17.

[Ron Amnsn]

39 minutes ago, Robert said:

Are you looking for the word "ceremonial"?  How about a sentence that describes the word?

 "These (i.e., food/drink sacrifices/Sabbaths/holy days) are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."

The word "ceremonial" would definitely add some legitimacy to the totally unbiblical theory of "ceremonial" vs "moral" law.  However, a description describing the ceremonial laws without using the word "ceremonial" would certainly work, if such a passage actually existed.

The verse you provide only works if someone makes the same non-biblical assumptions that you have made about the verse.

If I believe instead that Paul upholds the law (because he repeatedly claims to do so, and because his ministry would have failed if he hadn't), then the verse does not describe a category of laws that are "ceremonial", but rather describes the parts of God's law that should still be followed in daily life for the reason that Paul gives -- they provide a prophetic outline (shadow) of events that are still future in the ministry of Jesus. The substance of those events will probably be fulfilled on the exact days of the fall feasts appointed by God, just as at the first coming of Jesus the death and resurrection of Jesus and the giving of the Holy Spirit all occurred exactly on God's appointed feast days that occur in the spring.

[Robert]

5 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

If I believe instead that Paul upholds the law (because he repeatedly claims to do so, and because his ministry would have failed if he hadn't), then the verse does not describe a category of laws that are "ceremonial", but rather describes the parts of God's law that should still be followed in daily life....

Acts 21:27 ...some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28 shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. 

[Ron Amnsn]

8 hours ago, Robert said:

Acts 21:27 ...some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28 shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. 

Do you side with Paul's enemies in bringing false accusations against him?  Or do you put more faith these unknown accusers than you put in Paul's own testimony about himself?

Acts 24:14 "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,"

Acts 26:22 "To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass:"

Acts 28:17 "After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them, “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans."

Philippians 3:4-7 "If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ."

[Robert]

43 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Do you side with Paul's enemies in bringing false accusations against him?  Or do you put more faith these unknown accusers than you put in Paul's own testimony about himself?

Acts 24:14 "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,"

The law = the Torah

Unlike the Jews, Paul didn't present salvation by the work of the law.  The law here being the moral law and/or the book of the law (the Pentateuch).

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, jackson said:

Ron, It should be quite clear to all that when John said "feast or Passover of the Jews 'he meant the adherents of Judaism. 

The Apostle John  said of himself ,"  This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24) 

John, when referring to the 7th day Sabbath, never referred to it as "the Sabbath of the Jews". The feast days as part of what can be termed the ceremonial or carnal law came to an end at the cross when type met anti-type, and the apostle John so noted.

I have no argument with what John said, especially in the original language.  Since the followers of Jesus were a sect within Judaism (Acts 24:5, 14), the feasts "of the Jews" would still be for those who followed the example of Jesus.  The word "Jew" could have not been used at that time to differentiate between Christians and Jews, although it may have been used to differentiate between Samaritans and Jews or Gentiles and Jews.  Under Roman law at that time, if the Christians separated themselves from the Jews they would have been required to participate in the pagan worship of the Emperor.

Strongs is a great lexicon to find out how the translators of the KJV translated the Greek and Hebrew words, but it's not a reliable guide to how a native writer of the ancient languages would use the words.  It necessarily contains both the biases of King James and his translating team as they chose which English words and connotations would be used to represent the Greek and Hebrew, as well as the biases of Mr. Strong as he decided which English meaning the translators had intended.  The KJV has all the problems one would expect in a government-sponsored Bible translation, where the translators were directed how to translate by the king.  King James explicitly specified that the words that had been correctly-translated by William Tyndale, which Tyndale had been executed for translating correctly (ie "congregation" instead of "church",  "elder" instead of "Bishop", etc.), would be intentionally mistranslated so that they would seem to support the existing hierarchical church organization.  And virtually every English translation since the KJV has followed in some of those traditions established by the KJV rather than follow in the footsteps of Tyndale.

It is clear that the Passover was given to God's people to celebrate as a feast "throughout your generations" and "forever" (Exodus 12:14) rather than "until Messiah dies".  Since the followers of Jesus were a sect within Judaism, they would have understood exactly what Paul meant when he wrote of Passover, "Let us therefore celebrate the festival ..." (1 Corinthians 5:8)

Jackson, your last statement seems to reveal a dedication to man-made traditions rather than to Scripture.  Where in Scripture do you find that Scripture designates any law as "ceremonial"? Where do you find in Scripture that Scripture itself says that any law came to an end "at the cross" or "when type met anti-type".  It doesn't.  People who do not follow the example of Jesus have invented those theories to try to justify their man-made tradition of not living according to the example and teachings of Jesus.  Do you think Jesus was joking when he said, "I am the way" and "Follow me" and "Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" and when he commanded, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law" ?

Matthew 7:21-23 says,
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness."

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, Robert said:

The law = the Torah

Unlike the Jews, Paul didn't present salvation by the work of the law.  The law here being the moral law and/or the book of the law (the Pentateuch).

I agree with you.  The Jews had man-made traditions about how a Gentile could be saved by becoming a Jew.  Those "works of the law" defined what was necessary for the Gentile proselytes to do.  Paul opposed those man-made traditions.

[Ron Amnsn]

oops.  It looks like I may have misunderstood you, and therefore don't quite agree with you.  According to the usage of "works of the law" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it refers to man-made requirements necessary to join a community.  Paul didn't support the use of those "works of the law" for Gentile converts. 

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, Robert said:

Unlike the Jews, Paul didn't present salvation by the work of the law.  The law here being the moral law and/or the book of the law (the Pentateuch).

I don't think the Jews presented salvation by "works of the law" for Jews.  Jews were born into the community and inherited the covenants by birth.  It was for the Gentile proselytes that they required the "works of the law" as part of the traditional program that supposedly turned a Gentile into a Jew so he could be saved.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Ron Amnsn
I had accidently transposed Jew and Gentile in the last sentence. Fixed now.

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/30/2016 at 10:07 PM, Robert said:

Are you looking for the word "ceremonial"?  How about a sentence that describes the word?

 "These (i.e., food/drink sacrifices/Sabbaths/holy days) are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."

 

This agrees with my belief that some laws were prophetic.  They were a "shadow" of Christ and His work. 

[8thdaypriest]

18 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I don't think the Jews presented salvation by "works of the law" for Jews.  Jews were born into the community and inherited the covenants by birth.  It was for the Gentile proselytes that they required the "works of the law" as part of the traditional program that supposedly turned a Gentile into a Jew so he could be saved.

Yes - but Jews had to keep all the Law in order to REMAIN in covenant.  They would be "cut off" if they failed to repent and humble their hearts by Yom Kippur. 

Reminds me of Samie's doctrine of saved unless one failed to overcome evil with good. 

Gentiles did the "works" to ENTER IN to covenant with Yahweh. 

[8thdaypriest]

I agree Jackson, that Jesus fulfilled the Passover prophecy, and the Firstfruits prophecy, and the Pentecost prophecy - to the DAY and even to the HOUR.  But what about the Fall prophecies - Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles?  I do NOT believe those have been fulfilled.  I DO believe they will be fulfilled at the END of this age. 

So - if only half of the TYPES (prophecies) of the Feasts were fulfilled in the year Jesus died.  How then can the ENTIRE prophecy of the "appointed times" be obsolete and "passed away" ? 

One of the things (there are many reasons) that made me doubt that October 22nd, 1844 was the fulfillment of the Yom Kippur prophecy, was the complete absence of any harvest festival fulfillment 5 days later.  The Feast of Tabernacles (the final harvest festival) follows 5 days after the Day of Atonement, and it is a Feast of 7 days.  Then there is the special Feast of the 8th Day, the 22nd day of the 7th month.  That also went completely unnoticed back in 1844. 

If the Fall Feasts are to be "fulfilled in like manner" (as EGW said), then wouldn't the Fall Feasts all be fulfilled within one year (as the Spring Feasts were).  And wouldn't there be an ingathering Feast of Tabernacles, where we will actually tabernacle with the LORD and with all of those who were part of the great harvest of earth?  Wouldn't the Day of Atonement (including the scapegoat banished to the uninhabited place) take place within a SINGLE DAY (as the prophecy says).  And wouldn't there be an 8th Day Feast, when we are no longer "dwelling in booths", because we are "home". 

[8thdaypriest]

Who decided that "the LORD's Supper" would be celebrated 4 times each year - once each quarter??  There's nothing in the Scripture about THAT. 

At my home, we eat the LORD's Supper once each year, on the night which begins the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  That was -after all - when Jesus inaugurated these symbols.  We think of it as the Passover meal, without the roasted lamb.  Because the perfect Lamb of God WAS "roasted in fire" almost 2000 years ago - once for all time.  

My personal belief is that Jesus was telling His disciples they would henceforth observe the Passover WITHOUT the lamb sacrifice. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2016 at 2:16 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Yes - but Jews had to keep all the Law in order to REMAIN in covenant.  They would be "cut off" if they failed to repent and humble their hearts by Yom Kippur.

And will Christians not be told to depart from Jesus if they are "workers of lawlessness" on judgement day ?  Where does God say that those grafted in to the olive trunk of Israel through faith in Jesus are exempt from being "cut off" ?

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ " (Matt 7:21-23)

Previously in that same sermon Jesus stated that not one stroke of the Law would disappear from the section of Scripture that the Jews referred to as the Law. 

In Hebrews 10:7 it applies Psalm 40:8 to Jesus who came "to do your will".  We know what "do your will" looks like by looking at the life of Jesus -- He lived according to the Law of Moses.  Jesus says those who enter the kingdom will also do the will of the Father -- that sounds a lot like living as Jesus did and avoiding lawlessness by following the same Law that Jesus followed.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:33 PM, jackson said:

As for your claim of bias and other than pure motives on the part of KJV translators,

King James instructed the translators to translate in a certain way. This is documented history.  One of my first Bibles contained the 14 directives that he gave to the translators.  Some of those directives interfere with making an accurate translation.  The Puritans would not use the KJV originally because they did not consider it a good translation.  If Prince Charles commissioned his own translation of the Bible today, who would use it?  That is probably how the Puritans felt about the KJV.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:33 PM, jackson said:

The Apostle John was writing well after the death of Jesus. He was now writing with the knowledge that type had met anti-type.

It is true that John wrote well after the veil of the Temple was torn.  But somehow John still didn't teach what you are teaching.  The man-made theory did not yet exist that claims that somehow the "type" becomes invalid when the so-called "anti-type" arrives. That theory directly contradicts the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19, so John would not have used it and neither should you.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:33 PM, jackson said:

Now if you are going to continue to find fault with every English translation of the Bible in order to sustain your doctrine, then I suggest it is your doctrine that needs revising rather than the English Bible

Which of our English translations was translated before the apostasy that Paul foretold in 2Thess 2?

"Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed," (v 3)

"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work." (v 7)

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:33 PM, jackson said:

If he thought that the entire Law of Moses was still in effect he would not have distinguished between the 4th commandment and the feast days. But by removing Christians  from connection to feast days he showed that this part of the Law of Moses had no jurisdiction over Christians.

John did not distinguish between the 4th "Commandment" and the feast days -- you are forcing that distinction onto what John wrote in order to support a doctrine that was not created until long after John wrote, and you have to ignore the historical context in order to do so.

The Christians were largely still a sect within Judaism when John wrote. It was impossible for John to separate Jews from Christians at the time he wrote using the word "Jews", especially since it's literal meaning was Judeans.  When the incident occurred that is told of in John 2:13, there were no "Christians" at all anywhere.

The Galileans were also "Jewish" by religion and ethnicity but the author of John distinguished the Judeans from the Galileans with the word "Jews" in John 7:1, so we know that John used the word translated as "Jews" to distinguish Judeans. 
Notice that Jesus was in Galilee when John used the phrase "Passover of the Jews" in John 2:13. 
Jesus was also in Galilee when John used the phrase "a feast of the Jews" in John 5:1. 
Jesus was also in Galilee when John used the phrase "the Passover, the feast of the Jews" in John 6:4.
Jesus was also in Galilee when John used the phrase "the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths" in John 7:2.
Jesus was in a town called Ephraim when John used the phrase "the Passover of the Jews" in John 11:55.
Every time John uses "of the Jews [Judeans]" to specify a feast, Jesus is in another location than where the feast was held.
When Jesus is already in Jerusalem or its suburbs John refers to the feasts without saying "of the Jews [Judeans]". (John 2:23, John 4:45, John 10:22, John 12:1 & 12, John 13:1, John 18:28 & 29, John 19:14.

The phrase "Passover of the Judeans" in that historical context could have easily been distinguishing it from the Passover of the Samaritans, or the Passover of the Essenes or any other Jewish group that did not recognize the Judean leadership.

John also uses the phrase "of the Jews" when talking about Jesus as the King of the Jews.  If he was separating the Christians from the feasts of the Jews, as you claim, it appears that John was also separating the Christians from the King of the Jews as well.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:33 PM, jackson said:

Both Col 2:14-17 and Heb 9:9-10 speak on the same subject and clearly indicate that some ordinances in the Law of Moses; dealing with earthly sanctuary service terminated at the cross.

You seem to be making a lot of anachronistic assumptions about Colossians 2:14-17. 

Colossians 2:14 was probably talking about the handwritten placard listing the crimes of the accused that was nailed to a Roman cross.  We know it was not referring to any of God's instructions, laws, or ordinances because Paul used a Greek word (dogmasin) that is never used in any form anywhere in the Greek Old Testament to refer to any of God's laws, ordinances, or regulations.  The word dogma always refers to man-made rules, decrees or statutes whenever any of it's forms appear in the Septuagint.  Paul knew the right words to use to refer to God's laws and ordinances and used those words correctly elsewhere in his epistles.  I have covered this in detail in other threads.

We also know that nailing something to the cross doesn't make it obsolete because Jesus himself was nailed to the cross.

Colossians  2:15 talks about disarming rulers and authorities.  If Paul was trying to make the point that you want him to make, this would have been a great place to talk about the laws and ordinances that were annulled.  But he didn't -- he talked about rulers and authorities that were disarmed instead.

The context of Colossians 2:16-17 shows that Paul is admonishing the congregation to ignore the condemnations of the Gnostics and/or ascetics who believed that in order to be "spiritual" you had to deprive the physical body, and would have condemned God's feasts as occasions of gluttony and physical excesses.  The followers of Jesus would have been following the example of Jesus and would have been zealous for the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20) and for the Temple as Jesus was (John 2:17).  If Paul was teaching what you claim he was teaching, then Paul was a liar because elsewhere Paul testified that he believed "everything that agrees with the Law" (Acts 24:10)  What you claim he was teaching directly contradicts the Law and also directly contradicts what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17-19.  If Paul taught what you claim he was teaching, he would be "called least in the kingdom of heaven" and would therefore have no authority.  And who would want follow the teachings of a blatant liar, anyway?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:33 PM, jackson said:

Both Col 2:14-17 and Heb 9:9-10 speak on the same subject and clearly indicate that some ordinances in the Law of Moses; dealing with earthly sanctuary service terminated at the cross.

If Hebrews 9:9-10 actually means what you claim it means, why is it written in the present tense, rather than in the past tense.  It says,    "which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation."

The KJV renders that verse incorrectly in the past tense.  The Greek is written in the present tense.

The context shows that the author of Hebrews is showing that the priesthood of Jesus is better than the Levitical priesthood because the Levitical priests offered only food and drink and animal flesh, but Jesus offered himself.  The author is not finding fault with the priesthood and ceremonies that God set up.

In  the previous two chapters the author proves that your claim is false because the regulations that define who can be a priest on earth were still in effect when the book of Hebrews was written:  "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law."  (Hebrews 8:4)

There isn't anything in the whole book of Hebrews that would convince a follower of Jesus who is zealous for the law, as all the Jewish believers were (Acts 21:20), that any part of the Law of Moses had been annulled.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:33 PM, jackson said:

The dispensation of the Jews ended at the cross . They rejected the Messiah and their "house was left to them desolate".

Paul disagrees with you.  In Romans 9:4, speaking in the present tense about the non-believing Jews, Paul says, "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises."

Also, in Romans 11:1-2 Paul directly contradicts your claim.  "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew."

A few Jews in Jerusalem did reject the Messiah.  But many tens of thousands of Jews accepted Jesus.  So many Jews accepted Jesus that his enemies predicted that "everyone will believe in him." (John 11:48)  And the two men on the road to Emmaus said that Jesus was a mighty prophet in the eyes of "all the people." (Luke 24:19)  There were also all the Jews dispersed by the Babylonians across 127 provinces who had not even heard of Jesus yet, so how could they reject the Messiah?  That's not even possible.

Writing decades after the time you claim that the dispensation of the Jews supposedly ended, the author of John wrote, "He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."  (John 11:51-52)  John obviously disagrees with your claim -- he says that Jesus died for the nation of Israel.  If Christians separate themselves from the olive tree of Israel, they are pruning themselves from the nation that Jesus died for.

There are also prophecies found in Jeremiah where God makes it very clear that he will not reject Judah and Israel no matter what they do.  He will honor his covenants with them for his own name's sake.  Of course, the book of Hebrews makes this clear because it confirms that God makes the New Covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel and indicates they will be rejoined. (Hebrews 8:8)

The prophecy that Jesus referred to in the snippet that you quoted is found in Jeremiah 22:1-5.  It pertains to the palace of the King of Judah, of which Jesus was the rightful resident.  Because of disobedience it had already been desolate for centuries.  That's why Jesus said it would be "left" desolate  because it was already desolate.  He did not say that it would be "made desolate".  In the next verse Jesus talks about himself and makes it clear that the desolation was not permanent.  Notice what Jesus actually said, "See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ ”  

[8thdaypriest]

The command required that every Israelite male be present at Jerusalem 3 times in the year.  So WHY did Paul absent himself for 14 years.  That was not in keeping with the commands of Torah. 

Ron,  if another Temple IS built on the Mount before Jesus returns (and before the Evil One sits there), do you really believe the Jews of the present state of Israel will ALLOW Christians to enter there.  Israel currently screens printed material entering the country, and forbids anything that supports Christ as Messiah from entering.  They actively suppress Hebrew Roots and Messianic literature and videos.  They block internet that teaches Christianity.   They are AGAINST Christ.  In other words - they are antichrist.  (Just one of many powers and persons who have resisted and fought against Christ.  

John wrote:     1 John 2:18 “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.”

Maybe the new Temple will have a "Court of the Gentiles" - as Herod's Temple had (something NOT in keeping with Torah).  

I just don't believe the whole "animal sacrifice" thing will be an issue for Christians, this side of the SC.  And after the SC, Jesus can tell us whether HE wants the sacrifices continued.  You believe HE will.  I believe HE won't.  Whichever - it does not effect my salvation, or yours.  Though I believe - if a person plans a trip to the New Temple, this side of the SC, he/she might just be required to bow before the Son of Perdition.  I will skip that trip - thank you.  

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The command required that every Israelite male be present at Jerusalem 3 times in the year.  So WHY did Paul absent himself for 14 years.  That was not in keeping with the commands of Torah.

You may be missing something in the Torah commands that you say Paul was not keeping.

Paul said about himself, "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day." (Acts 22:3)  and "If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless." (Philippians 3:4-6)  I think Paul  probably knew the Law of Moses better than you or I did.

I don't understand what you hope to show by trying to prove that Paul lied about his own beliefs and behavior.  In Paul's day it was always his enemies who accused Paul of breaking God's Law.  Are you siding with the enemies of Paul?

According to Jesus, those who break the Law and teach others to do so will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:19)   It sounds like maybe that's what you're trying to say Paul did.