I commend you for focusing on the few that are at least more confusing than most. Although drudging through the many that are easy to reconcile apparent contradictions can make accepting the few a little easier. Without that, let my layout a brief background.
First, I believe scripture is inspired by God and can't have contradictions because of it. Second, I believe that Yeshau was the only one who ever kept the Law perfectly. And that perfect Law keeping must have included proper interpretations of the Law and not abolishing any of the Law, by definition of that very Law (Torah) in Deut. 4:2 (among other places). Third, I believe the Apostles did not pervert that Gospel of correct Torah keeping by Yeshua, but transmitted it faithfully to us in their inspired writings.
If we cannot agree on those three statements of faith, then we probably just need to stop right here. But I will assume for the moment that you agree Yeshua didn't break the Law and that His Apostles didn't pervert His gospel. But if you agree with that, then you have a problem and/or contradiction in your gospel if you believe the Law was abolished by either Yeshau or His Apostles. I will admit my bias here. I'm biased in favor of believing Yeshau kept the Law perfectly and that His Apostles transmitted His Gospel to us faithfully, so I will look for interpretations that support that.
Finally, I'm reminded of Peter's warning about how difficult it might be to properly interpret many of Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:16:
"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures"When Peter writes of people who are ignorant, do you suppose he meant people who are ignorant of Calculus? Or perhaps he was concerned that his audience was ignorant of astrology? Of course not. The ignorance of concern was ignorance of the Hebrew Scriptures called the Old Testament.
Quote:
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law
You highlighted this as if it proves your point. I presume that is a point of abolishing the Law, which by that assertion either makes Yeshau a sinner or Paul a perverter of Yeshau's Gospel. Ignoring that problem of yours for the moment, I will note that many people read the "curse of the law" in many ways that this does not say such as:
1) The Law
IS a curse
2) The Law is curs
ed3) Cursed is everyone
who desires to keep the Law
4) Keeping the Law will only bring
curses on you.
And many others of similar thought. But these are wrong. That is not what the words say. What they say is very simple.
The curse of the Law is that requirement in the Law that sin must be punished by death. Has Christ redeemed us from that curse? Yes. Hallelu' YAH! But there is nothing about this work of Christ that calls for us to stop following His instructions for our lives.
For the following section, I'm going to highlight a verse that you did not:
Quote:
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
What I've highlighted addresses the same problem I addressed above to k2aggie07, so at least scripture is being consistent. The consistency is that much of what both Yeshua and the Apostles were addressing was bad doctrine in 1st Century Judaism driven primarily by the Pharisees of believing righteousness (i.e. salvation) could come by following the Law. That's wrong. The Law never said that. The law was for basic right living AND the Law was for pointing us to Yeshau UNTIL He came. But now that Christ has come, that one purpose of the Law, that being pointing to Mashiach, has been fulfilled, so we look to Yeshua himself and have little need of the Law to point to one we know exists. But that doesn't abolish the Law's purpose as a path to right living at peace with God and at peace with our brothers.
For the last one, I'll bring two scriptures closer together:
Quote:
What purpose then does the law serve? it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
In the Aramaic, the last sentence says:
"we are no longer under tutors."The last tutor is plural as tutors. A small difference on paper, but a huge difference in meaning.
Who were the mediators and tutors of the Law in 1st century Judaism? The Pharisees. Now that the Law has tutored us (and the Jews) to Christ, they were no longer under the Pharisees' as tutors as only Christ is our Rabbi.