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

As I had percieved from the objection raised by Pro, the misunderstanding here is due to a lack of context. For simplicity's sake, I will use ESV and there is nothing peculiar about this version besides the convenience that I possess a printed version of it. In order to defend my position I will start by showing what the verses actually say and continue by defending against the objections raised. I will start with Romans 3. The first few verses (1-8) of this chapter are talking about whether Jew have a superior position before God than Gentiles. What is important to recognize in the writing style of Paul is that in this particular chapter he repeatedly states the thoughts of a human's sinful nature and then corrects them. Pro has quoted Paul out of context by using what Paul satirically says as his actual opinion. This will be obvious when we look at the context and the verses: "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oraclesof God. What is some were unfaithful? Does that faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though everyone one were a liar, as it it written, That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged. But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come? - as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just." Romans 3:1-8 So if you see the recurring pattern in the passage, Paul is barely stating his own position but anticipating the possible objections to his claims. He even clearly indicated it by stating that he is speaking in a “human” way and what he means by this is that his sentence there conveys the ideas of an unsaved man, and not himself. Paul does not encourage one to lie so that God may be glorified, and actually teaches the opposite. Paul teaches in the verses right after this that no one is righteous and that they cannot add glory to God, hence he would whole heartedly agree with you when you said that God doesn’t need man to glorify Himself because He truly doesn’t. Paul quotes the psalms in his gospel of the Romans in chapter 3 verse 10 – 12. “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” Romans 3: 10-12 “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.” Romans 6:12 Paul does not teach to lie or sin, and condemns them. He teaches that we can only be righteous before God through faith as our works are inadequate. This is consistent with the rest of scripture and hence your objection that Paul promotes lying to glorify God is not true. That was him speaking on behalf of those raising objections and not his teaching which is shown throughout even the book of Romans. Moving on to the next verse: “I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!” This one is less to do with the textual context, but more to do with the historical context. Paul, an ex-persecutor of Christians, had converted and began preaching the Gospel and is not inferior to the other apostles appointed by Jesus. The reason I say this is because Jesus appointed him too, and it is not by works or anything else that men receive a standing before God, but through faith in Jesus which he undoubtedly had. The apostles are not somehow super human, they are people just like us who received the direct guidance of Jesus. In Acts 22: 6-21 Paul gives his personal testimony, and this was written by Luke, an apostle who recognized this as God’s doing, so who is pro to judge the approval of the apostle Luke who chose to accept Paul. Paul interacted directly with Jesus just as the other apostles did, and I would argue that the washing of feet, and eating the last supper with Jesus did not make the 12 apostles any holier. The biggest example is Judas, who Jesus did all of the things you mentioned to but did he believe in Christ? No! Unlike what you think, being with Jesus or his apostle does not give you a justified standing before God and in this perspective, Paul is no less than the other apostles as he was appointed by Jesus Himself, and had shown the fruits of his faith. To end off, you asked how a person who just met Jesus can have better standing than the apostles, and I will answer this with the event of Jesus’ crucifixion. Luke 23: 41-43 “ ‘And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man (Jesus) has done nothing wrong.’ And he said, ‘ Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ And He said to him, ‘Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’ ” Jesus never said that to any of the apostles, but he gave this privilege to a ‘stranger’ who only believed in Him, for even though he had sinned greatly, Faith in Jesus is what brings salvation. Hence, Paul needs to have been present for Jesus ministry to be on the same level as the apostles who are justified by faith, not works or actions.The examples you have brought against Paul are not what he is saying (Romans) , or unjustified accusations (II Cor). I would like to see why you still believe that these verses show everything wrong with him, even when the context is showing he is not. Cherry picking is not the best way to convict someone of guilt. Thank you.