Romans 3:7 and 2cor 11:5,10.fundamentally show everything that is wrong with Pauline Christianity

Starting with Romans 3, Yes the first few verses are talking about jews, but Romans 3:7 is not talking about jews, it does not say if there lie...it is in the singular, if my, and Paul who was talking is not a jew at this point. Pro is simply trying to whitewash the evident scriptural truth by attempting to mask the reality of this statement by somehow saying that Paul was talking about the sinfulness of man's nature and the likes. However, the end of that verse states, ( i am using the new international version-which con somehow claims that is less convenient than ESV) , "8 Why not say"as some slanderously claim that we say""Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is just!" Paul clearly says that Their condemnation is just, what does this have to do with human nature of how he writes this is as clear as day and night, he is referring to those who condemn him not those who condemn man's sinful nature. Yes, if you read the verses one can see that Paul is simply justifying in an arrogant manner any objections to his claims. Hoe can one say that Paul is merely stating his opinion when 1.He ends the verse by claiming that good will come from his evil so as to say the end justifies the means , and those who object can object all they want 2.( i speak in a human way) was not part of the bible it is added ESV commentary that con is cherry picking( a claim he levels against me) so as to make this commentary appear as part of scripture and thus validate his opinions. 3.In verses 10-12 Paul is talking about sin, he does not claim as you can clearly read that his explanation for people not being righteous is an allusion to the fact that those who would condemn him of his lie should remember that they too are sinners and should be concerned about their own lies, this is a subtle but arrogant way of redirecting criticism. Paul clearly said,But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?(Romans 3:7 ESV)1. if through MY LIE, how then can con claim that Paul condemned lieing? The words are clear , he had issue with being condemned for his lie which he believed was bringing God's truth, but is God weak that he needs man to bring truth through lies? This is clearly an attempt by con to explain away what is apparent, Paul does teach with these words that if you lie to bring about good for God it is okay, you should not be condemned a sinner; an example ( as earlier stated) that many have followed. if Paul did not teach that lieing was acceptable and that God's truth could be propagated by lies, many an early missionaries would have told the people "Hail, behind us comes your conqueror, your colonizer" but nay , the primitive ungodly man was deceived under the pretext that liberty from false gods was being granted, why then if Paul did not preach that this was okay, were the crusades not started by a lie? A lie that would return Jerusalem into the hands of rome and by that result abounding God's truth? Even the blind can see this. Our works before God being inadequate does not mean that Paul is condemning lies , nor does being righteous mean this, in fact by his definition, righteous names could mean doing whatever is necessary be it unjust war (even if Jesus said turn the other cheek ) and lies to abound God's glory. Con is dismissive of obvious truths, using ESV to attempt to potray Paul as a simple theologian discussing the weak man is ridiculous, He did not address the objections whether legitimate or illegitimate and simply as if with a magic wand claimed that those objections are irrelevant as he was doing what was good for God, is this if not anything the definition of arrogance. but dont listen to me let us use the words of Paul the truthful, 1 Corinthians 9:20"22(ESV) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became mas one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. KEY WORDS:BY ALL MEANS, need i say more? This discussion was about the Romans 3:7 but con attempted to use an argument that compelled me to use other verses, if Paul himself practiced deceit, would he forbid his followers the same? 2 cor 12:16 Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery! Indeed Paul, you caught con by trickery. Next verse: Historical context? What does this have to do with the verse at hand? if this was the case then most verses of the bible should be interpreted only in a historical context , "less to do with textual context" is this how you perceive the word of God? if your claim is true that Paul was only saying this because he had been a former persecutor of the church and was through faith a new man , why then did Paul say , " 1 Corinthians 15:9-10 " For I am the least of the Apostles, which am not meet to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God. But by the grace of God I am that I am: and his grace which is in me, was not in vain: but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which is with me." Will you say that this was "historical" when he boosts that he is better than those whose feet Jesus washed? He compares himself equal to all the other apostles combined, what is this if not a sense of pride? Did luke write the book of Acts? There is no scriptural truth of this besides concoctions and analogies and on top of that Luke a companion of Paul is not the same as Luke the apostle. Hece the claim that an apostle followed Paul is ludicrous. wikipedia states The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul. Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.[3][4] This Luke is mentioned in Paul's Epistle to Philemon (v.24), and in two other epistles which are traditionally ascribed to Paul (Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11). The view that Luke-Acts was written by the physician Luke was nearly unanimous in the early Christian church The epistle of Philemon, almost universally accepted as an authentic letter of Paul, merely includes the name "Luke" among other "co-workers" of Paul who are sending greetings to the letter's recipients (Philemon, verse 24). The identification of Luke as a physician comes from Colossians so where is your proof from scripture that Luke the apostle followed Paul or will your lie abound God's glory. Now who is cherry picking?