Paul was a false prophet: Original sin and the law

Why did Pro use Jones and Manson to make his point? Obviously based on their fruits, any claims of divine revelation are quickly dismissed and should be. I will respond in bold to differentiate. You can be a really nice person and claim to hear from God and really are not. I just used extreme examples. Biblically, I think it safe to say that anyone who lies is a false prophet as I could show in a separate debate that Paul did multiple times. For starters he admitted he would tell a lie for the sake of spreading his gospel: "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense (lie) or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice" (Philippians 1:18). "But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile"(deceit/trickery) (2 Corinthians 12:16). This page documents lots of Paul's lies: http://false-apostle-paul-archive.blogspot.com... I would highly suggest spending some time on this link because I just cannot say it all here. You gave some NT examples of other characters referring to Paul as a prophet. Not that the rest of the NT is trustworthy, but anyone can make a mistake and believe that about Paul. We also learn here that none other than Jesus himself commissions Paul; "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel..."(:15-16). Jesus was not on the scene in Acts 15. The reference is to an OT prophecy and you are simply giving Paul the credit. It should be noted who did not believe in Paul - the churches in Asia did not (2 Tim. 1:15) and they were established churches. Paul was an expert in O.T. law [4]. First Paul knew almost nothing about OT law. That is part of Christianity's big deception to you. How could he know about a law that was stamped to be in effect forever and say that it was nailed to the cross? How could you miss that? He himself wrote that the law is "holy" and the commandment is "holy, just, and good" [5]. ...and he also wrote that the law was a curse but this debate is not about NT contradictions. The O.T. Law is divided up into 3 main sections: The moral, ceremonial, and civil. True.The moral law is summed up in the 10 commandments. There is not a single verse in the Bible to back that up. It's just something Christianity invented.The civil laws were laws that pertained to Israel"s judicial system as a nation. While true, if a law could be obeyed by an individual then it applied to the individual. A nation cannot technically break a law from God. Only an individual can. Lots of laws beyond the top 10 could apply to an individual like eating pork and shellfish. These distinctions are critical to a proper understanding of scriptures. Based on his arguments, it seems my opponent is unaware of these divisions. No, I am aware of this but even the modern day church does not believe in all of the 10 commandments law. Ask them about keeping the Sabbath and out come the anti-law Paul quotes. Try it. "The New in the Old is concealed, The Old in the New is revealed." This common adage is helpful to interpreting the bible as a whole. This common adage is not based on the OT at all. It is based on what the NT says the OT means. 1. All of man, thanks to the sins of Adam and Eve, is fallen before God, lost and in need of salvation (FALSE)I accept this as a Christian teaching that is taught most clearly by the apostle Paul. However to prove Paul is a false prophet, it must be shown that this teaching contradicts other scripture. Where are the scriptures that teach men are born holy or without sin? 1 John 3:4 says sin is "transgression of the law." What is the law? The law is the rights and wrongs that God gave Israel that he told them was forever ( Ps 119:89, Ecc. 3:14, Is. 31:2) In light of the word "forever," why do you not see Paul's serious contradiction to that? 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. Sin is not some vague "missing the mark, doing wrong, going against God's will" stuff. It is simply transgressing the law. There is not other definition so until you can prove that children just born can choose to transgress God's law, Paul is wrong. scripture is replete with verses that speak of man's sinful condition. I will list some. More available upon request.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. 2. The reason the Messiah was to come was to redeem the sins of mankind because man was cut off from God (FALSE)Let the reader decide if Matthew John, and Jesus agree with Paul or my opponent's statement above.You mentioned several verses about Jesus coming to save man from sin in the gospels. We are kind of getting off topic because the discussion is really about Paul and I will divert too but this debate was not supposed to be about me attacking the gospels too. Yes, the gospels do have a few mentions of Jesus coming to save man from sin but it is not actually the same doctrine Paul taught. Jesus said to believe in him and you would have eternal life but he never said "after I die and are raised again, you must believe in my resurrection in order to be forgiven of sins." You would think that God in human flesh would make one mention of that, wouldn't you? Nevertheless, there is another dirty little secret that you probably do not know unless you have spent an enormous amount of time studying the origin of the NT. Paul's writings absolutely influenced the gospels. His writings surface first before the actual 4 gospels and it is clear that whoever edited the NT took at least a tiny bit of Paul's doctrines and incorporated it into the gospels and so you have a little bit of the forgiveness of sin aspect woven in...but notice very little. I will show how the righteous O.T. saints were indeed forgiven of their sins and how this in no way contradicts the teachings of Jesus, Paul, or the church. Yes, they were forgiven but you are going to show how it does not contradict the NT? You have an uphill battle because you are somehow going to have to get around Paul's statement: "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." (1 Cor. 15:17)You already admit that forgiveness was available in the OT and even while Jesus was here. Paul says that if Christ had not been raised, no faith would work and you are still in your sins. Why would it matter to Paul if Jesus had never been raised if forgiveness was already available and he seems oblivious to the idea that animal sacrifices ever led to forgiveness and they did. You did not answer many of my charges against Paul and while I cannot force you, please answer this: 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). This verse is talking about the end times when God’s wrath hits the earth and he is reminding the people to remember (be keeping) the law at that time. If you disagree on the context, just read the entire chapter and it is unmistakeable. There is mention of keeping of the law but no mention you better be worshipping Jesus! Instead, the Old Testament repeats its central theme – to keep the laws God gave to Moses. If God knew the future and the New Testament is true, then God should have mentioned something about his son, Jesus. Why would he not? Why would he lead us, the readers of the Bible astray with a reminder to be keeping the law if the law ended with Jesus as Paul will later teach?