Paul was a false prophet: Original sin and the law

Pro proclaimed he would prove Paul was a false prophet biblically. I quote from portions of the bible not written by Paul and Pro says they are “untrustworthy” and “mistaken”. Okay, I should have clarified. Peter had problems with Paul and the churches of Asia completely abandoned Paul (2 Timothy 1:15). Ephesus was, at the time, the largest city in Asia, so this means that at some point after he wrote his epistle to them, the Ephesians, for some reason, ceased to regard him as a genuine apostle. Note that he does not say that the believers in Asia abandoned the Christian faith, and he does not say that they abandoned the original Apostles of Jesus. Paul says only that the believers in Asia abandoned him. That is what I should have said the first time. In fact, the other apostles were hearing about Paul teaching not to keep the law and challenged him to prove that he was in Acts 21:21-6. They were mistaken thinking he was teaching the same thing they were because they assumed he too was teaching that man still needed to keep the law. Jesus was not on the scene in Acts 15. The reference is to an OT prophecy and you are simply giving Paul the credit. I never quoted from Acts 15. I quoted from Acts 9. Jesus is most assuredly in this passage and he commissions the apostle Paul. No one knows exactly who wrote Acts but their were no witnesses to Jesus appearing to Paul. Paul told the writer of Acts what happened. It is just Paul's assertion that Jesus appeared to him just like it was Jim Jones's assertion that God spoke to him. It was just a case of "God told me to tell you." Just because you are reading it within the pages of the Bible in your hands does not mean Jesus appeared to Paul. First Paul knew almost nothing about OT law. Luke records that Paul was a Pharisee. Paul claims that he was a Pharisee. I provided a reference from the Jewish encyclopedia about Pharisees. I assume you did not read the link I posted about Paul. There is not enough space for me to address all of that here. I believe that this verse is not speaking of the law but of the debt that we owe for not obeying the law. I realize that some Christians interpret this to be speaking of the law. The Bible says: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (the law) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians 2:14). It says nothing about any debt. Anyway, are people born without sin? Of course. How does a 2 day old baby break one of God's laws? Please don't ignore this question. There is no need to ignore this question. A basic understanding of original sin answers this question. Each of us is born with a sin nature. This is why we sin. Sir, sin is choosing to transgress the law (1 John 3:4). Please explain how a freshly born baby chooses to transgress the law or better, name a law that a baby can conceivably break. Your argument fails until you can do that. You are using Paul to back up your beliefs about Paul's original sin which is a circular argument. Paul's concept of original sin is not choosing to break the law. It is a birth defect - something that no other prophet or apostle taught in the entire Bible. There is no getting around that. Sin is not inherited and why would it be? What kind of God would punish me for someone else's sin which is what you have to believe in to believe Paul? I don't know why you listed all those verses about man committing sin because they have nothing to do with Paul's doctrine of being born with original sin. Paul taught you were lost from the minute you popped out. In order for there to be a contradiction Pro must show that the bible teaches that man is NOT born sinful. Why would the Bible ever refer to righteous innocent people at any age if they were born with a "sin nature." How could they be made clean? Ho was Noah good before any sacrifices? Why would Jesus say to become like little children if all children were stained with sin? If Jesus came to die for our sins and belief in him is necessary and the law is "nailed to the cross," consider Malachi 4:4: "Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded to him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of God comes (Malachi 4:4). Your assessment of Malachi 4:4 missed it. It was not at all talking about the 1st century. It was talking about the upcoming day of the Lord. "Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire" Mal. 4:4) Were the evildoers turned to stubble in 70 AD? You also reference Elijah coming before that day and said that John the Baptist was him. John denied being Elijah (John 1:21). John actually states that Jesus was the forerunner of Mal. 3:1. Nowhere in Malachi does it say an Elijah type is coming. It says Elijah and he did not come. What does obeying the law mean? The same thing it means to obey US law.You are sounding a little like Bill Clinton with that question. But the nation was being judged for her unfaithfulness. You or I don’t need to know how much unfaithfulness is allowed before God drops the hammer. So you agree that God punishes all for the actions of some. If 99% broke the law with no repentance at all, God has to punish the 1% too. Individual faithfulness notwithstanding, the nation had not kept the law. Because a nation cannot keep a law - only individuals can. Modern example: The SCOTUS just negating the DOMA. As an individual, I support the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. However I am a citizen of the USA. The SCOTUS is the highest law in the land and thus very much represents the nation of America. In a very real way, America has spoken on this issue. Good example and the law only applies to individuals who can or cannot marry. A male state cannot marry another male state. Give me a real example of how a nation can break a law. The nation can pass laws against theft but only individuals can steal. This is kind of getting off track from original sin but that is okay. I wish you could see how the NT reinterprets the entire meaning of the OT. There is just no way for you to see that without putting on hold in your mind the idea that Paul's writings are valid. If you read the Bible without Paul, you would be with a Jewish Messiah and you would, like the believers in Jerusalem in Acts 21, be keeping the law. Only Paul has steered you otherwise. Don't you find it suspicious that God chose one person with no witnesses around to be the 13th apostle with his unique message of original sin? Matthias was chosen to replace the dead Judas (Act 1: 15-20) as the 12th apostle. Rev. 21:14 says there are only 12. Who promoted Paul to apostle? Paul did! This was the first site to open my eyes about Paul: http://www.judaismvschristianity.com...