Paul was a false prophet: Original sin and the law

Thank you. I will first address my opponent’s comments from round 5. He quotes from 2Tim.1:15. Paul, from prison, writes to Timothy that “all those in Asia have turned away from me”. Pro tells us what the passage doesn’t say: 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. Pro correctly points out what the verse doesn’t say then draws a conclusion from what the verse doesn’t say! If Pro had applied his own argument from silence to defend the apostle rather than condemn the apostle he would have also pointed out that it doesn’t say Paul was a false prophet, or exactly how or why they left Paul, or that they “ceased to regard him as an apostle”. There is certainly no mention about Paul’s teachings regarding the law. Notice how much mileage Pro gets out of this one phrase! Notice the very next verse; 2Ti 1:16 The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; Understandably some were ashamed or afraid of Paul’s imprisonment (chains). In contrast to those in Asia, Onesiphorus refreshed and ministered to Paul during his imprisonment. Paul makes mention of this in his next letter to Timothy, 2Ti 4:16 At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me… Notice here it is clearer how Paul was forsaken; “at my first defense…all forsook me”. Paul was referring to his defense in court. Even if it meant what Pro claims, it doesn’t prove Paul was a false prophet. Jesus was forsaken by none other than Peter for a time. 1Jn. 2:19 refers to how some left the apostle John. John 6:66 says about Jesus; “From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.” About Paul’s conversion recorded in Acts 9 Pro states, “Just because you are reading it within the pages of the Bible in your hands does not mean Jesus appeared to Paul.” I will remind the reader that Pro claimed he would prove that Paul was a false prophet from the bible. In addition to explaining Pro’s false accusations against the apostle, I provided instances where other biblical writers refer to Paul as an apostle. Pro’s response…you can’t believe the bible. So we are left to conclude that the only believable portions of the bible are the ones with which Pro uses to attack the apostle! This is one of several instances throughout this debate that my opponent calls into question the veracity of the bible. This is a FATAL SELF-INFLICTED WOUND to his case. Nothing can be proven by the testimony of an unreliable witness. 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. My reference provided an excellent interpretation of this verse. Pro repeats what he already said without dealing with the interpretation I provided. Why would the Bible ever refer to righteous innocent people at any age if they were born with a "sin nature." God has always provided forgiveness for sin. Again the “contradiction” doesn’t come from scripture but from Pro’s inability to understand. Ho(w) was Noah good before any sacrifices? Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah all offered sacrifices to God. I am typically very patient with ignorance as I would be the 1st to admit my lack of knowledge in any area. But this question combined with Pro’s statement that Philemon authored a N.T. book along with Pro’s superficial gotcha game with bible verses must be put forth as evidence of Pro’s credentials. Remember Pro accused Paul of knowing almost nothing about the law. Let the readers decide if they will condemn the apostle on testimony based on this witness’s knowledge of scripture. Why would Jesus say to become like little children if all children were stained with sin? Pro has stated and placed much weight on Paul’s teaching on original sin. So far he as provided no verse to contradict Paul’s teaching. None. Yet he proclaimed from his opening that he would prove Paul is a false prophet biblically. Finally we are provided with a vague reference from Jesus about us becoming more like little children in order to come to him. Assuming this verse means anything like pro wants it to mean, Jesus would be saying that we are to become sinless (like little children) before we come to him. Anyone with a cursory understanding of what Jesus taught would reject this meaning. Mt. 9:13b “for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Pride, stubbornness, biases, skepticism, unbelief etc. all hinder adults from readily accepting new teachings. Children are usually humble and willing to learn and believe. Something along these lines is what most understand Jesus to mean here. A quick note on Pro’s use of 1Jn 3:4. This is a straw man. No one believes infant children sin. Original sin explains why we sin. I answered all of Pro’s questions about Mal.4. His inability to understand doesn’t require me to repeat myself. Neither does his mere assertion that I “missed it”. I will address his new point. Jesus said John the Baptist was the Elijah to come. John the Baptist denied he was literally Elijah. This is how these scriptures are commonly reconciled. However Pro has no interest in reconciling scripture. He likes the one John says so this is the only one he will use. I have addressed them all in a way that does no violence to any of them. Nor does it accuse any of contradiction. If the testimony of witnesses can be reconciled why continue to insist on contradiction? Pro has committed this presumption of guilt throughout this debate. I have sought for harmony in the scriptures. Pro has sought for contradictions and “fallacies”. Yet he assures us that he can prove Paul is a false prophet from the bible! The nation of Israel was indeed punished for not keeping the law. Ez39:23 & Jer. 22:9 were scriptures I provided that stated exactly this. Judah & Israel were exiled for their unfaithfulness notwithstanding faithful individuals (Daniel). Pro doesn’t understand this concept so I tried to give him a recent example from the SCOTUS. Pro can twist my example any way he wants but again it was an attempt to help him understand what the bible clearly teaches. How a nation can sin and be out of favor with God is a concept that is easy to understand. However even if one had no idea how a nation could sin it doesn’t change the fact that Israel did sin and was punished as a nation for her sin. Even if Malachi is referring to the end of the world, keeping the law (summed up in the 10 commandments for individuals) is not contrary to Christianity. Like the psalmist (119), I love the law. However the civil laws given to Israel and the ceremonial laws requiring animal sacrifices are no longer in effect. O.T. prophecy- Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- N.T. fulfillment - Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” The hybrid group of messianic Jews he provided a link to refuse to relinquish the old covenant law for salvation. There have always been Jewish people who reject the truth due to their misunderstanding of how the law was fulfilled or perhaps their tradition or whatever. Note what they did to Stephen, Ac 6:13 They also set up false witnesses who said, "This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law;”. Stephen was stoned to death for these his “against the law”. There has been and always will be those who bring false accusations against men of God. The reader is left to decide if Pro is one of these… I would like to thank Pro for the interesting debate and the audience for reading. Blessings,