A response to apostolic Islam: "How Paul deceived the disciples of Jesus"

(Here is the video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0h4MeQ-k3o&t&ab_channel=ApostolicIslam)

The opening of the video associates the authorship of Hebrews to Paul according to church tradition. The authorship of the epistle is not relevant, so I am not going to go over it.
However what caught my eye was the claim that the author of Hebrews wrote to exhort his audience to reject the Jewish teachings (the law/Torah) and to remain faithful to Jesus (his death for their sins). The reason for this is because in Hebrews 10:18 it states that "and when sins have been forgiven, there is no need to offer any more sacrifices." 

But in Acts 21, didn't Paul go out and did a Nazarite vow? Is there now a contradiction between Paul's thinking that Christ has atoned for all sin and that sacrifices are no longer needed?

Hebrew Bible and Second Temple scholar M. S. Heiser states,

The label “sin offering” assumes that the goal of this sacrifice was forgiveness for moral failures or violations—sins as we think of them. Leviticus reveals this is not the case. The sin offering was used in cases where people suffered from a bodily discharge (Lev 15), at the dedication of
a new altar (Lev 8), or when a Nazarite completes a vow of abstinence (Lev 12). The real goal of the sin offering was ritual purification. It was designed to guard sacred space—territory sanctified by God’s presence—from infection by impurity. By definition, every person or object “falls short” of divine perfection and must therefore be ritually marked as acceptable for holy ground. The sin offering—better rendered as “purification offering”—was therefore applied to people and inanimate objects to mark them as acceptable before God. These people (and objects) were not unacceptable because they had done evil, but because they were imperfect—they “fell short” of the holy perfection that God’s presence required. The ritual reinforced the idea of the complete otherness of God. But if the sin offering of the Old Testament didn’t purge people of moral guilt, what about the “forgiven” language? And what happened when people did evil? The verb translated “forgive” ( סלח , salach) essentially means “to be positively disposed toward.” In the context of purification, God now approves of the person or object entering His presence. While the verb may be used elsewhere to address moral guilt (e.g., Psalms 25:11), when it comes to the Levitical sacrifice itself, the point was not absolution, but acceptability for entering God’s presence. Intentional violations of the moral law of God fell into two broad categories and were dealt with accordingly: those for which there was no remedy, resulting in capital punishment, and those for which restitution was required. For the latter, Old Testament law called for reparations to victims to restore the offender. In this context, the words of Hebrews 10:4 are right on target. Old Testament sacrifices could not provide release from spiritual and moral guilt. They merely allowed people to participate in a temporary and ultimately inadequate system while teaching them about God’s nature. Only Jesus’ greater sacrifice could solve the real problem of our moral guilt before a holy God.
("I dare you not to bore me with the Bible," p. 32)

But what about Hebrews 10:18? We know that Hebrews 10:4 is spot on, because it is talking about sin in the sense of morality. Does the latter half of 10:18 assume that offerings could forgive moral sin? No, because the term sin in 10:18 is different from the term sin being used in 10:4.

New Testament scholar H. W. Attridge states,

...The phrase, in effect, reiterates the insight derived from the exegesis of Ps 40 in vss 8-9, that the old cultic system has been abrogated. What that system aimed at has been remarks. replaced by the unique and ever-effective sacrifice of Christ. [Cf. 1:14; 8:13; 10:39.]

("Hebrews," Hermeneia, p. 316)

  So according in the epistle of Hebrews, the atonement of Christ not only atoned moral sin, something that cannot be achieved in the Hebrew Bible, but also atones for ritual purity space. M. S. Heiser also agrees with this, saying,

You were always in danger of pollution, as well. This is why you had to have this system of repeated offerings and sacrifices. It was a large element of the logic, because you were always in danger of polluting yourself or sacred space. But with Jesus, you're not! And—bonus time—you also receive the forgiveness for moral sin, as well. You get two for the price of one. Two permanent [applications of forgiveness] for what happened on the cross. It's superior in every sense.

(Naked Bible Podcast Transcript, Episode 196, Hebrews 10, p. 15)

So, now the correction is out of the way, just a summary of why I explained all of this. The conclusion is that in Hebrews 10:4, it is talking about moral sin which cannot be forgiven, while in Hebrews 10:18 it is talking about purity sin, and that through Christs death both are atoned for. Also, the Nazarite vow or any sacrifices in the Hebrew Bible are not for moral sins but are strictly only for purity space. So the Nazarite vow seen in Acts 21, is a purity space ritual. But wait, have we solved one contradiction to create another?

Why would Paul do the Nazarite vow, if he believed that Jesus' atonement purified him to be in safe spaces? (cf. Hebrews 10:19). This problem can be dissolved by saying that Paul did not advocate anti-Torah in the sense you should never abide by it, but also believed that staying by the law is pointless.

"for in union with the Messiah Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters. What matters is faith expressed through love." Galatians 5:6.

"Do we, then, abolish the Law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we uphold the Law." Romans 3:31.

What Paul was thinking in his mind was that abiding by the Torah in the sense of Deontological ethics is pointless. Simply doing actions, does not mean you are good or even justified. But not doing good actions means you do not have a good heart either. Paul's thinking was not "You can do whatever if you have a good heart," or "you can think whatever but just act good," but rather you must have a good heart and do good actions. A good heart brings good actions. But simply doing good actions does not justify a heart.

When Paul did the Nazarite vow, the entire purpose was not to demonstrate Paul communicating we need the law, but instead for Paul to communicate about himself that he is not forcing anybody to forsake the law. Acts 21:21 demonstrates that the entire point of Paul doing this was to defend himself from appearing he is against the law. "No!" Paul would've said. "I am not against the law, you can stay kosher as you please, the law can benefit you spiritually, but the law cannot save you."

"But they have been told about you—that you teach all the Jews living among the gentiles to forsake the Law of Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs." Acts 21:21.

Now, why would Paul say he is fulfilling the law? Doesn't he basically communicate that the law is entirely useless regarding salvation? The reason why Paul said he was fulfilling the law was because of the passage in Genesis of Abraham being justified by faith. 

"In the same way, Abraham 'believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'" Galatians 3:6.

"For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'" Romans 4:3.

"Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Genesis 15:6

By believing through faith, and not being legalistic, this was the ushering of a new era, an era that maintains the law still. That being, through faith and through love.

"Do not owe anyone anything—except to love one another. For the one who loves another has fulfilled the Law. For the commandments, “You must not commit adultery; you must not murder; you must not steal; you must not covet,” and every other commandment are summed up in this statement: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” Love never does anything that is harmful to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the Law." Romans 10:8-10.

 

Final Conclusions

Why would Paul do the Nazarite vow if he did not believe that it would benefit him? The answer is simple. Long story short, Paul was aware the Nazarite vow would do nothing at all, because Christ's atonement purifies not only morally but also for the sacred space. But Paul did this because people were rumoring about Paul that he is anti-law and teaches to abstain from it. Paul did not teach that, but rather taught that still being committed to the law is okay (and I would argue it can bring spiritual importance and that parts of the law can be virtuous though not it's entirety) and you can continue practicing it, but do not expect it to bring you salvation. Only a good heart can get you to God, not good works. But good works emerge from a good heart naturally.
Saying "do not practice the law at all" is very different than saying "you can stay by the law like me for an example, but do not expect it will bring you salvation."

The Torah was it's own code of virtuousness in the ancient world, from the First Temple era to the Second Temple era, and even continuing forth it can be. That was why people still practiced it, even though they were Christians, because their views of morality were quite different back then, given the honor system in the ancient world and many other factors. So Paul believed staying by the law was most certainly something that was virtuous, but did not believe that it would save you. Imagine in this modern day, staying by a code of virtuous values. Those virtuous values, do not grant you salvation, but does not mean we should now abandon them. In the ancient world, this was the exact same view but for the Torah. Today, the view on the Torah is now very different, because we are not ancient people.  Paul never believed the Torah was bad. He just believed that by heartlessly following it like a machine, does nothing at all.

Paul did this Nazarite vow because he wanted to demonstrate to his fellow Jews that he does not believe the law is bad. Besides, the Nazarite vow's purpose is not even entirely ritual purity, but also was a temporary vow that an individual could undertake to set themselves apart for a period of time, typically for a special purpose or as an act of devotion. Which is a good thing.

In conclusion, Paul did not do the vow to purify himself. No, he did it to prove himself to his fellow Jews he believed the Torah was virtuous. But believing the Torah is virtuous does not equal to believing the Torah can save you. In the words of pseudo-Paul, 

"For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God and not the result of actions, to put a stop to all boasting." Ephesians 2:8-9.