He wasn't dishonest at all really, the issue is that he was teaching at a time where people and at the very least the hebrews were WAY more intelligent.
Many ancient hebrew writings, most of the ones I recall that are not added to the scriptures, that were considered apocalyptic in naritive amusingly highlighted that the end days would also include a stage where people on a mass level if I were to put it frankly were lacking in intelligence and uncarring of the fact that they are.
People now are following Torah, are misunderstanding why it was given and misunderstanding what it means. Christains misunderstand as well, because in actuality following the laws of Moses is neither good nor evil in the grand scheme of things.
Many hyms in the 1st Century body actually give the insight that the gathering had more information than was highlighted in what was compiled in the new testament.
Though it seems, Sha'ul spoke on a general sense which is why people get confused from his writings.
As an example, when he speaks of nature, people think he means that if we can look at nature we can assume there is a creator. But what he is saying is deeper than that if you read many of the texts and understand the hebrew culture.
When we look at the visible we can understand the invisible. Take for the example the trinity doctrine, people can go back and forth and debate, but really if you look at nature: The family model was created male and female, which brings forth life. The Father, the Mother or Ruah (distributer of wisdom, given a feminine description in hebrew text) used to create the Son who brought the will of the Father to creation.
Hebrew uses a lot of play on words, so the people confuse when the Son seemed to have claimed he was the father. But he never said that, he said that he was Yah, which if you read carefully in the OT was not the same person as Yahuwah (YHWH or IAUA).
Paul understood this and he proved it by linking to a psalm referencing Yah and revealing Yah as the Son. Can't remember the verse on the spot unfortunately.
Another example is the woman's authority in relation to the man. When you look at the sun and the moon, the sun is the dominant luminary and even at night the moon is actually reflecting the light or the glory of the sun. The wife reflects or directs the will of the husband glorifying herself and the the husband in the same action, at least that's how a hebrews would understand it.
As far as the written torah, that was put in place because Israel had some serious mental problems after coming out of Egypt (obviously). The rituals were a reflection of things and a foreshadow, that physical representation of them being set apart and bound to the creator. They were set apart by the creator whether they followed the laws or not. The prophecies would consume them whether they followed the law or not. A person willing themselves into following the law or part of the prophecies and are not the blood line descendants are just not going to match up, like trying to fit a square block into at circular hole. The witnesses (as a collective org) are completely guilty of this.
The physical ritualistic things were put in front of them because it forced them to keep the creator on their minds and use their brains. The day of rest was a time for them to reflect and maybe get something out of it, because if you work everyday you don't have time to apply any knowledge or wisdom or meditate, thats why it was - created for man. The whole thing was a cleansing process so that they could actually get their true rest.
Another example is the dietary law, you now have these cartoon characters who promoted it as some sort of health manual and people fell for it. Its foolishness, the point was to look at the nature of the animal and determine how to make righteous judgements and actions. The manner in us is is to ultimately do good or evil, but there are "grey" areas that still eventually lead to one or the other, the animal separations were to drive this point home.
An example, there is a wife and a husband that work at the same facility. The husband is in charge of the cameras, the wife steals items while on the job, the husband edits video footage to prevent the wife from being caught. You could say that the husband is working to help his wife out of love, but the whole operation is evil, he is using his love for evil by providing its shade. He has the appearance of cleanliness but is fully unclean, like some animals seem to have clean characteristics but are categorized as unclean. So no, Robin Hood should not be praised as some kind of hero.
On the other end you have a person who calls out evil and exposes wickedness and in some cases causes a commotion, or a boy that turns down an invite to a planned robbery with his friends and reports them, severing their friendship. There are things that have evil elements but are ultimately good as there are some animals that may seem unclean, but are on the whole clean.
Thats what nature was supposed to be a testament to.
