Twisting the meaning of Scripture

The Bible is consistent, logical and coherent, from the first verse to the last. It's man who manipulates and twists the meaning to legitimize his point of view and do his own will, not God's.

If the Bible is constantly the same from one end to the other, why do we often think it contains contradictions and inconsistencies? Can you read the Bible and take a stand on a subject based on a single verse? This is an important question, because a single verse can be made to say anything! For on the basis of a single verse, deliberately ignoring related verses or the general context of the verse, you can establish untruths and assert anything.

This has led to a proliferation of so-called Christian denominations...

What do the Scriptures say?
To avoid confusion and disorder, God, through the mouths of the wise, laid down a very simple rule, but one that unfortunately few use, especially nowadays.
(Deuteronomy 19:15)
A fact can only be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

(2 Corinthians 13:1)
All cases will be settled on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

This rule of two or three witnesses has always prevailed: that's why the facts relating to Christ were recounted by four apostles and not just one or two.

This rule also applies to the Scriptures themselves! If a doubt or controversy persists, simply apply the rule of two or three witnesses: if verses from two or three prophets or apostles confirm or refute a line of reasoning, then that line of reasoning is correct or incorrect!

Case study: keeping the commandments
Keeping the commandments is a sensitive subject among Christians. Those in favor are quickly branded legalists, Pharisees, hypocrites... Those opposed always quote only Paul's writings. I can't recall ever hearing a Christian quote a verse from the epistles written by Peter, James or John in support of non-observance of the commandments. And with good reason!

I'm going to apply this two- or three-witness rule here to demonstrate that keeping the commandments is still required for all Christians.

First witness: Jesus
(Matthew 19:17-19)
He answered, "Why do you ask me about what is good? Only one is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. Which ones? he said to him. And Jesus answered: You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother; and love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus is clear. Any commentary is superfluous here. Jesus even quotes the details of the commandments!

Jesus later reiterates:
(Matthew 23:2-3)
The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' chair. Do therefore and observe all that they say to you; but do not act according to their works.

The greatest intellectual fraud has been perpetrated in the interpretation of Jesus' words in the verses of Matthew 5...
(Matthew 5:17-20)
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. THUS, he who shall do away with one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men to do likewise, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who shall keep them, and teach men to keep them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Whole generations of Christians continue to be led to believe that Jesus came to abolish the commandments. But take a good look at your Bible. They make Jesus say, in the same speech:
that he came to abolish the commandments and therefore (sic) he who abolishes the least of the commandments will be the least in heaven.

Doesn't this "consequence" shock you? Doesn't this logic disturb you? Doesn't this antagonism challenge you?

Jesus comes to abolish the law. Therefore, whoever abolishes the least commandment will be considered the least in heaven...
Doesn't your reasoning suffer from this illogicality? Logically, Jesus should have said, on the contrary, that whoever abolished the least of the commandments would be considered the greatest! But that's not what He said...

To understand this tour de force that has been breeding rebellious Christians for years, read this article.

Second witness: Jacques
(James 2:10)
For whoever keeps the whole law, but sins against one commandment, is guilty of all. For he who said, 'You shall not commit adultery', also said, 'You shall not murder'. Now, if you do not commit adultery, but commit murder, you become a transgressor of the law.

It is here too that perverse and rebellious spirits reveal themselves... They preach that, since he who sins against one commandment sins against all, we should keep none of them! This is not what James writes! Reread the whole of chapter 2, verses 1 to 11, and you'll see how he castigates those who think they're honoring God, when in fact they only have regard for the rich and contempt for the poor.

Nor will James be able to help those who despise God's commandments.

Third witness: Paul
(1 Cor. 7:19)
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping God's commandments is everything.

(Romans 7:12)
The law therefore is holy, and the commandment holy, just and good.

(Romans 8:1)
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit; (Ostervald)) [...] For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, while those who live according to the spirit set their minds on the things of the spirit. [...] For the affection of the flesh is enmity against God, because it does not submit to the law of God, and indeed cannot. But those who live according to the flesh cannot please God.

Paul approves the observance of the commandments and writes it in black and white! It's because there's confusion about the wrong purpose of the law as understood by the Jews that it's hard to understand Paul's thinking in the epistle to the Galatians.

In Galatians and Romans, Paul rightly asserts that it is not observance of the law that justifies, but faith in Jesus Christ. Faith certainly justifies, but James is quick to point out that "man is justified by works, not by faith alone".

Fourth witness: Jean
(1 John 5:3)
For God's love consists in keeping his commandments. And his commandments are not painful,

It's certainly not from John that Christians will draw their arguments to justify the non-observance of God's commandments...

Conclusion
God's commandments have not been abolished. One by one, each of the apostles warned the Christians. The Bible is one. It is coherent and indivisible. Only when we twist God's Word do we create confusion and contradictions.

If you were intending to use some of Paul's words to support your argument against keeping God's commandments, I urge you to read this article to understand Paul's seemingly contradictory words and remind you of this warning, not from me, but from Peter:
(2 Peter 3:16)
This is what he [Paul] does in all the letters, where he speaks of these things, in which there are points difficult to understand, whose meaning ignorant and unstable people twist, like that of other Scriptures, for their own ruin.