The Instigator
brett.winstead
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
snamor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Paul was a false prophet: Original sin and the law

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,889 times Debate No: 35033
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)

 

brett.winstead

Pro

In this debate, I will show that the NT writer Paul was a false teacher who brought in a new idea that was foreign to the rest of the Bible writers. The debate will be based on Paul's ideas that:

1. All of man, thanks to the sins of Adam and Eve, is fallen before God, lost and in need of salvation

2. The reason the Mesiah was to come was to redeem the sins of mankind because man was cut off from God

3. The law was never given to save man in any sense. It was impossible to keep and no one ever did.

4. A man's sins could not possibly be forgiven unless he has faith in Jesus.

All of these ideas are wrong and I will prove it Biblically. Any takers?
snamor

Con

I accept.

In order to use the bible to prove that the apostle Paul was a false prophet, Pro must:

1)Understand and communicate accurately the meaning of Paul"s teachings.
2)Understand and communicate accurately the meaning of other bible passages not written by Paul.
3)Show that Paul"s teachings contradict these other passages.

I expect that all of Pro"s attempts to prove that Saint Paul is a false prophet will fail in at least one of these points. If this happens the beloved apostle to the gentiles will be innocent of the charge and Pro will be guilty of defamation.

I understand my lack of debating experience and limited knowledge and skills. The great apostle deserves better. If I fail, I would ask the reader to consider the 2,000 years of church history which admires this man as a saint who dedicated his life to spreading a gospel of grace and love to much of the known world. He was beaten on several occasions, persecuted, imprisoned and eventually beheaded for the Lord Jesus Christ. He deserves the benefit of the doubt on any statements that may seem to be in contradiction to his other statements or other passages in the bible.

A superficial treatment of Paul"s words in an attempt to label him a false prophet without affording him this benefit would be as shameful as the false prophet accusation itself.

I expect better from my opponent and anticipate an interesting debate.

Blessings
Debate Round No. 1
brett.winstead

Pro


Thanks for accepting the debate. I was starting to wonder if anyone would! I will debate my part in bold so if you want to copy any point to counter, you can leave mine in bold to make it easier to read. Here are the points I already mentioned so I will start with number one.

1. All of man, thanks to the sins of Adam and Eve, is fallen before God, lost and in need of salvation (FALSE)


First, we have to agree on one thing. A person like Paul is not hearing from God just because he says he is. I would assume you can agree with that since many nutty people throughout history (Charles Manson, Jim Jones, etc.) have claimed to have heard from God. Paul claims to have gotten his words from God so let's just see if the rest of the Bible matches up.



Paul introduced the world to the idea that man is lost from birth.



"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12).



Rom 3:10: "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one"



To Paul, sin was not a choice that one chose to do. It was a birth defect. You were born stained with sin and there was simply no way to get rid of it before Jesus. It is highly interesting that in the roughly 4000 years of Biblical history from Adam to Paul, God did not see fit to let any other prophet in on this highly important piece of information - not Abraham, Moses, David, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah or anyone else. For this reason, Jews reject the very idea that man is lost from the moment he is born.



Now, into the New Testament (NT). Jesus talked about sin but never mentions anything about original sin. Again, isn't that supposed to be important? Isn't it crucial to a Christian's salvation that he understand why he needs a savior and that he could never have kept the law? After Jesus, the apostles carry on with the message into the book of Acts. You have writings from James, Peter, John, Philemon, Luke (if he wrote Acts) and still, no one else makes the first mention of original sin. So, in order for you to believe Paul was a prophet, you have to believe God felt the need to hide this all important message from every other character in the Bible, including his own son Jesus!




2. The reason the Messiah was to come was to redeem the sins of mankind because man was cut off from God (FALSE)



This is part of Paul's original sin doctrine. According to Judaism and the OT prophets, the Messiah was to come and restore Israel and set up his throne and the whole world was to hopefully follow their model of the worship of the one true God while keeping the law. The Jews were not looking then and they are not looking now for a savior to die for their sins. The Jews already knew how to be forgiven in their religion – repent and keep the law again. When there was a temple, they sacrificed animals and their sins were 100% forgiven (Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35). Even without a temple and without animal sacrifices, God did allow sins to be forgiven:



Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips (Hosea 14:2).



How is it possible for even Jesus to tell the woman that her sins were forgiven (Luke 7:48) even though there had not been any shedding of his perfect blood yet? In light of the fact that forgiveness was already available, what was the need for Jesus' death?




3. The law was never given to save man in any sense. It was impossible to keep and no one ever did. (FALSE; however the word "saved" is not really an OT idea. To be saved means one is lost and the OT does not teach this)



The main thing God wanted from man in the Bible is for man to be righteous before him. Do you agree?



"Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man" (Ecclesiastes 12:13).



The question is how could man be righteous before God? The answer is very simple and yet, I do not believe any Christian I have ever spoken to understands this verse:



"The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today. And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness"(Deuteronomy 6:24-25).



Did you catch that last line "that will be our righteousness." What will be our righteousness? Back up a few lines to " if we are careful to obey all this law." There you have it. Righteousness, in the entirety of the OT comes not by believing in anything, not even by having faith! It is from obeying the law. Did you know the word "faith" appears in the OT only twice? Isn't that interesting?



Paul did not agree with Deut 6:25 at all:



"We are justified by faith and not by doing something the Law tells us to do" (Romans 3:28).



Deuteronomy says man is justified by keeping the law and Paul says it is faith.



Having brought up Deut 6:25 to various Christians, some do have this reply: "Sure, righteousness could have been attained by keeping the law except for one big problem - no one could keep it. It was impossible." Let's face it. According to Paul, that is correct since he stated numerous times that justification cannot come by keeping the law so there is no need to argue that. However, is it true? Could someone be righteous in God's eyes without having faith in the shed blood of Jesus? Let's see a few examples:



A. God called Noah good in contrast to the rest of the world that he called "wicked."


B. The Bible called Job "blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil." (Job 1:1)


C. "Moses and Aaron were among his priests, Samuel was among those who called on his name;
they called on the LORD and he answered them…they kept his statutes and the decrees he gave them" (Psalm 99:7).


D. Hezekiah kept the law (2 Kings 18:6).


E. God really bragged about David minus the Bathsheba incident!


F. "In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Luke 1:5-6).



Was it possible to keep the law? Absolutely. I have given just a few specific examples above but it goes much further than these. You can check any concordance and see that the Bible mentions the righteous,blameless and the innocent numerous times throughout the OT. Ask yourself this question: How, if they were born with original sin as Paul taught, did they become righteous? Paul taught that righteousness was not possible without faith in Jesus. Let's note one last thing about the difficulty level of keeping the law:



"Now, what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. No, the very word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it" (Deuteronomy 30:14).



Why would the "God-inspired" writer of Deuteronomy say that it was "not too difficult" if Paul said it was impossible?



4. A man's sins could not possibly be forgiven unless he has faith in Jesus. False

This one is easy.



Then the priest is to sacrifice the sin offering and make atonement for the one to be cleansed from their uncleanness. After that, the priest shall slaughter the burnt offering and offer it on the altar, together with the grain offering, and make atonement for them, and they will be clean (forgiven)" (Lev. 4:19-20)



...despite the NT teaching "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb. 10:4).



You can also search out the word "forgiven" in the OT with a concordance and find many more examples.



Looking forward to your reply.


snamor

Con

Thank you for your reply. These issues are at the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am grateful for this opportunity as I will indirectly be sharing my faith.

Prophet - one who utters divinely inspired revelations [1]

Paul

"Beware of false prophets...you will know them by their fruits" Jesus Mt.7:15a&16a.

I agree that people are not hearing from God just because they say they are. However, when considering the veracity of one's testimony, the fruits of one's life must not be ignored. 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. Should we dismiss Paul's claims as easily? Accepting the claims of a leader of the largest religion in the world [2] is different than accepting the claims of a lunatic.

Furthermore Paul is not the only one claiming that he is a prophet. It is clear from the record of Paul's miraculous conversion (Acts 9) and his subsequent journeys that Luke, the author, believes Paul is a prophet. 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).

What did Peter believe about Paul? "as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2Pet 3:15-16) Peter says:

1. Paul is a beloved brother.

2. Wisdom has been given to Paul.

3. This wisdom is evident in all of Paul's epistles.

4. Paul's writings are twisted by untaught people, as are the rest of scripture.

Notice the last phrase; "as they do also the rest of scripture". Peter may be elevating Paul's writings to the very level of inspired Scripture. If not, he is at the very least esteeming the writings of Paul. With a perfect opportunity to condemn Paul as a false teacher, Peter instead affirms Paul.

Paul is revered by the Christian church and has been for 2,000 years for his sacrificial life and ministry. His contemporaries recognized his calling and supported his work. Indeed they so loved this apostle that they kept his letters, copied, and circulated them. These letters were preserved, recognized as divinely inspired, and included in the N.T. canon. They have been read, memorized, and used by the church to teach and encourage for centuries. You shall know them by their fruits.

Pro often uses the O.T. law to make his points. It is relevant to point out that, as a Pharisee [3], Paul was an expert in O.T. law [4]. He himself wrote that the law is "holy" and the commandment is "holy, just, and good" [5]. This expertise and love for the law of God uniquely qualified Paul to help the church in her infancy as she grappled with how the O.T. law should be understood now that the messiah had come. Ironically Paul himself reconciles most of the issues raised by Pro. Not by contradicting the law he loved and believed was inspired by God but by harmonizing the law with its fulfillment.
Mt 5:17 " "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." Jesus

The Law

The O.T. Law is divided up into 3 main sections: The moral, ceremonial, and civil. [6]

The moral law is summed up in the 10 commandments.

The ceremonial laws address priestly duties including those pertaining to the sacrificial system.

The civil laws were laws that pertained to Israel"s judicial system as a nation.

These distinctions are critical to a proper understanding of scriptures. Based on his arguments, it seems my opponent is unaware of these divisions.

O.T. and N.T relationship

"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.

In other words, the N.T. brings into focus what was only partly understood by reading the O.T. alone. The O.T. often provided the framework while the N.T. brings clarity.

The suffering servant prophecy regarding Jesus from Isa. 53 is an example. When read without the benefit of the N.T., we are left with many questions about this servant. Not the least of which is his relationship to the coming messiah. However we see in Jesus how one man can be the suffering servant and the conquering King. The N.T. brings into focus that which was unclear in the O.T. This is exactly what Philip did in his encounter with the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:25-37).

The Ethiopian eunuch was reading from Isa.53. Phillip asked him if he understood what he was reading. He said he didn't. Phillip preached to him Jesus from this O.T. passage. The Ethiopian believed (faith) and was baptized. This passage was not clear by itself but it came into focus as Phillip explained to this man how it was fulfilled in Jesus.
"For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come" Heb.10:1 .

This and a proper division of the law will deflate most of Pro's arguments.

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? None are provided by my opponent. On the other hand, scripture is replete with verses that speak of man's sinful condition. I will list some. More available upon request.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Ps. 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

Ec 7:29 Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes."

Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

Mt 15:19 "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

These verses may not teach original sin with as much clarity as Paul, but they certainly do not contradict Paul. If anything they provide support for this doctrine.

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.

Mt 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."


John the Baptist, upon seeing the Messiah.

"behold the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world". Jn.1:29


Jesus

Lu 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Note the exclusive language by Jesus. No One. In the next round, 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.


Thanks for your patience. With basic groundwork laid, I look forward to addressing specific verses and supposed contradictions presented by my opponent.

Blessings,

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.adherents.com...
[3] Acts 26:5, 23:6, Phil.3:5
[4] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...
[5] Romans 7:12[6] Chapter 19 of Westminster Confession of Faith; of the Law of God is an example where different aspects of the law are recognized.
[6] Chapter 19 of Westminster Confession of Faith; of the Law of Godis an example where different aspects of the law are recognized.

Debate Round No. 2
brett.winstead

Pro

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?

snamor

Con

Thank you.


I will first finish addressing Pro’s points 3 & 4 from round 2.


Points 3 & 4 will fall together because they are mistaken on what Paul meant and they are mistaken on what the law actually accomplished.


With 3, Pro is confident he has a contradiction. The proof:


"The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today. And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness"(Deuteronomy 6:24-25).


"We are justified by faith and not by doing something the Law tells us to do" (Romans 3:28).


Deuteronomy says man is justified by keeping the law and Paul says it is faith.


This is a contradiction for shallow audiences only. Pro states he has never met a Christian who understands this verse (Deut 6). This admission is revealing. If he was at all interested in an explanation he could have found it with little effort. It seems he is satisfied quoting superficial “gotcha” verses out of context and moving on.


How were O.T. saints righteous?


They were to keep the law. Question for my opponent: What does that mean though? Did they keep the law perfectly in that they never broke a single commandment? If so what would be the need for the sacrifices? The very implication of the sacrificial system was that sins would need to be forgiven. In other words the moral law would not be kept. There would need to be atonement for these sins. There were even sacrifices for sins that were committed unknowingly.


“If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally by doing something against any of the commandments of the Lord in anything which ought not to be done, and is guilty, or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, then he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.” (Lev 4:27-28)


So keeping the law included the sacrificial system which was put in place because people could not keep the moral law perfectly. So yes! An O.T. saint was righteous through the law (including sacrificial). The problem with many of the Jewish leaders in Paul’s day was they trusted in their own righteousness which they obtained by keeping the commandments. Not by trusting in God’s provision through the sacrifices but trusting in their ability to obey the law and obtain their own righteousness. This is what Paul was referring to when he said we are not justified by doing what the law tells us to do.


Ro 9:30-33 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."


Israel was seeking righteousness by the works of the law; their ability to keep the moral law.


Was Paul a false prophet for exposing Israel’s disobedience and misapplication of the law?


Notice what the O.T. prophet Malachi says to the priests of the law:


Mal 2:8 But you have departed from the way; You have caused many to stumble at the law. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi," Says the LORD of hosts.


Malachi is the last book of the O.T. to be written. It is the last inspired (apocrypha notwithstanding) indication of the state Israel before the time of Christ and Paul. The entire book of Malachi is a scathing rebuke because the priests had not kept the law. Malachi is certainly not alone among the prophets. There are numerous examples from O.T. prophets of how Israel failed under the law.


400 years later it seems nothing had changed. Jesus picks up where Malachi left off. Matthew records Jesus’ rebuke of the Jewish leaders in chapter 23. One of many rebukes is in verse 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith…”


The scribes and Pharisees kept the outward law meticulously. But Jesus condemns them because their hearts were wrong. A fair reading of Jesus and Paul will reveal that neither had a problem with the law of God. The problem was that the Jewish leaders had missed the point of the law.


By the time of Christ there was but one conclusion: Generally speaking Israel failed under the law. It did not make them righteous. They did not keep it. Please don’t point to individuals like Elizabeth who were righteous just before Christ came. No one disagrees with that. There always was a remnant of believers. We are talking about the state of God’s people Israel. Had the law made them a righteous people?


Pro quotes from Deut. just after the law was given. The honeymoon stage. Expectations were high. They entered into covenant with God that they would keep the law. It would “be their righteousness”.


At this same time, Moses presents many blessings for keeping the law and many curses for breaking the law. De 30:19 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;


Question for Pro: Did Israel obey the law and receive blessing or did they disobey the law and receive curses? Please support your answer as to how the law was righteousness for Israel. Not merely the promise of righteousness but how it actually was accomplished throughout the history of Israel recorded in the bible. How did the law thing work out for them?


Mal 3:7 ¶ Yet from the days of your fathers You have gone away from My ordinances And have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you," Says the LORD of hosts.


Again Malachi is the last O.T. book to be written. “Yet from the days of your fathers …you have not kept them”. In other words Israel never kept them.


The law failed to save Israel. The O.T. prophets declared it, the captivities confirmed it, Jesus declared it, Paul declared it.


Paul explains why the law failed. Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh...


Jesus did what the law could not. Hence he fulfilled the law. “Mt 5:17 ¶ "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”


This really is the key to our entire discussion. Jesus was the messiah and he fulfilled the law. The N.T. writers including Paul believed and explained this. Remember John the Baptist’s words: “Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world”.


Jesus accomplished what the law could not. The N.T. book of Hebrews written to a Jewish audience teaches throughout how Jesus fulfilled the law and how his sacrifice was superior to that of the law. One example:


Heb 9:24-26 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another--He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.


Paul was writing after Jesus came and was offered as the lamb of God. The reoccurring animal sacrifices were no longer necessary. Only faith in the perfect sacrifice would save.


Far from being a false prophet, Paul and the other N.T. writers were used by God to explain how Jesus fulfilled the law in the new Covenant.


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…”



Blessings,

Debate Round No. 3
brett.winstead

Pro



This is a contradiction for shallow audiences only. Pro states he has never met a Christian who understands this verse (Deut 6). This admission is revealing. If he was at all interested in an explanation he could have found it with little effort. It seems he is satisfied quoting superficial “gotcha” verses out of context and moving on.



The old "out of context" excuse. Heard it many times.



How were O.T. saints righteous?



They were to keep the law. Question for my opponent: What does that mean though? Did they keep the law perfectly in that they never broke a single commandment?



You are now thinking like a Pauline Christian under this mistaken idea that you had to keep the law perfectly from cradle to grave or you could not be one of God's people. This is just an idea that Paul invented. There is no mention of this in the entire OT.



If so what would be the need for the sacrifices? The very implication of the sacrificial system was that sins would need to be forgiven. In other words the moral law would not be kept. There would need to be atonement for these sins. There were even sacrifices for sins that were committed unknowingly.



I did not write the OT. That is just what it says so we agree. They could break the law knowingly or unknowingly but God still wanted the shedding of blood to forgive the sin. That did not mean one had persmission to go break the law again.



“If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally by doing something against any of the commandments of the Lord in anything which ought not to be done, and is guilty, or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, then he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.” (Lev 4:27-28)



So keeping the law included the sacrificial system which was put in place because people could not keep the moral law perfectly. So yes! An O.T. saint was righteous through the law (including sacrificial). The problem with many of the Jewish leaders in Paul’s day was they trusted in their own righteousness which they obtained by keeping the commandments.



But that is exactly what Deut 6:25 says - that your righteousness comes by keeping the law and you have ignored the OT proof that the law was forever! How could it end as Paul taught if God said it was forever. You still have not addressed that. You are not getting the fact that this is exactly what the NT does not teach - especially and mainly Paul. The problem was not the leaders in Paul's day because they had it right. The problem was Paul. If you have an understanding of the OT beyond the NT's interpretation of it, it all flies in the face of Pauline doctrine. Read my debate about Acts 21 and you will see that the other apostles expected Paul to be keeping the law too and in front of them, he did.



Not by trusting in God’s provision through the sacrifices but trusting in their ability to obey the law and obtain their own righteousness. This is what Paul was referring to when he said we are not justified by doing what the law tells us to do.



I have proven this doctrine of Paul's to be wrong. All you have to do is read the OT. No one else but Paul even taught this.





Notice what the O.T. prophet Malachi says to the priests of the law:



Mal 2:8 But you have departed from the way; You have caused many to stumble at the law. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi," Says the LORD of hosts.



There are numerous examples from O.T. prophets of how Israel failed under the law.



This is just one of those Bible fallacies that I like to point out too. Israel was a nation and a nation cannot keep the law. Only individuals can. A nation is not capable of making a decision to keep or not to keep God's law. Only individuals can. How can a nation abstain from pork or keep the Sabbath? If you are going to say "the people as a whole," what percentage? A nation sinning is like a chair sinning. Not possible.



By the time of Christ there was but one conclusion: Generally speaking Israel failed under the law. It did not make them righteous. They did not keep it.



Some did and some did not - just like today. Israel could not keep the law because Israel was a nation but I repeat myself. If you disagree, tell me how Israel could steal. You are letting the NT interpret the OT while ignoring the OT.



There always was a remnant of believers. We are talking about the state of God’s people Israel.



Now, you are admitting that certain people kept the law? How many would you say need to keep it before the "nation" kept it?



Question for Pro: Did Israel obey the law and receive blessing or did they disobey the law and receive curses? Please support your answer as to how the law was righteousness for Israel. Not merely the promise of righteousness but how it actually was accomplished throughout the history of Israel recorded in the bible. How did the law thing work out for them?



I think I have already answered this twice about nations being unable to keep laws.



This really is the key to our entire discussion. Jesus was the messiah and he fulfilled the law.



I do not know why used the verse about Jesus "fulfilling" the law as a reason the law no longer exists. Fulfilled does not mean replaced. By the writer saying he fulfilled it, it meant he lived it out. It did not end there. Otherwise, lawlessness and anarchy (redundant) rule the land. Does that make sense? Is stealing now okay?



Jesus accomplished what the law could not.



You mean Jesus found a way to forgive sin? Already possible. What else was necessary?



The N.T. book of Hebrews written to a Jewish audience teaches throughout how Jesus fulfilled the law and how his sacrifice was superior to that of the law. One example:



Heb 9:24-26 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another...



Who wrote Hebrews? We don't know but the Hebrew writer also said it was impossible for sins to be forgiven by animal sacrifices (Heb. 10:4) when a child could read otherwise in Lev. 19:22. I don't see how you could miss that unless you don't want to see it.



Paul was writing after Jesus came and was offered as the lamb of God. The reoccurring animal sacrifices were no longer necessary. Only faith in the perfect sacrifice would save.



Paul wrote Hebrews? Not that it matters, but there is no mention of "me, myself or I" in Hebrews, pronouns that Paul used about himself over 900 times. He liked himself.



Far from being a false prophet, Paul and the other N.T. writers were used by God to explain how Jesus fulfilled the law in the new Covenant.



And I think I have given you a credible Bible tour to show how wrong he was. The other apostle writers of the NT did not teach that the law was nailed to the cross. You cannot find that anywhere. Only Paul was important enough to God to reveal that most important piece of information or so he says.



I noticed that you totally ignored my most important point about Malachi 4:4 and how it points to people keeping the law in the end times when calamity comes but no mention of believing in God's son. Ez 45:21 says that in the eternal kingdom, the law will be kept complete with animal sacrifices in order for sins to be forgiven. Of course, you cannot believe that as long as Paul is still in your Bible and Marcion made sure he got there. http://www.bible.ca... to learn more about Marcion and what he thought of the law and Paul.

snamor

Con

Thank you,

Thus far I have addressed at length the 4 main reasons why Paul has been accused of being a false prophet. Now I will address Pro’s points from rounds 3 & 4.

R3

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.

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”. Bait and switch. I would not have accepted a debate where every biblical writer is a false prophet or unreliable. Impossible to prove anything Pro or Con.

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.

I suppose Jesus is unreliable too?

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?

Luke records that Paul was a Pharisee. Paul claims that he was a Pharisee. I provided a reference from the Jewish encyclopedia about Pharisees.

Pro replies with a mere assertion that I have been deceived. The verse about sins being nailed to the cross is easily explained by anyone who understands that the N.T. fulfills the O.T.

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. Perhaps you have a point with them. I am not them. There is no contradiction.

Here is a valid interpretation for this passage that includes the context. [1]

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.

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.

I stated why I listed the verses. The verses were examples of how the bible speaks with one voice about the sinful state of man. Paul may have explained the cause of man’s sinful state more thoroughly but this is in no way a contradiction. In order for there to be a contradiction Pro must show that the bible teaches that man is NOT born sinful. Crickets…

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).

Malachi 4 is a reference to the coming messiah. “But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings…”

We have a specific time-frame reference given in vs5 “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.”

Mt 11:14 "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.” This is Jesus speaking of John the Baptist. (See also Mt 17:11; Mr 9:11; Lu 1:17)

Malachi calls the people to remember the Law of Moses which included blessings and curses. They had been warned. The entire book of Malachi is a rebuke to Israel and ends with this foreshadowing of judgment (curses).

Judgment did indeed come to Israel in A.D. 70. with the destruction of the temple. Josephus records the devastating slaughter that took place. Once again we are talking about fulfillment. The only contradiction is for superficial students only.

R4

The old "out of context" excuse. Heard it many times.

Based on your use of scripture, there is a very good reason you have heard it many times.

You are now thinking like a Pauline Christian under this mistaken idea that you had to keep the law perfectly from cradle to grave or you could not be one of God's people. This is just an idea that Paul invented. There is no mention of this in the entire OT.

I said no such thing. Reread my explanation of how one is righteous by the law.

While you are there please answer my question. You quoted from Deut. That obeying the law “will be our righteousness”. What does obeying the law mean?

Surely you know what it means or else it could hardly be used as a contradiction to what Paul taught. I have presented my hermeneutical approach to scriptures. I look forward to hearing yours.

I have proven this doctrine of Paul's to be wrong. All you have to do is read the OT. No one else but Paul even taught this.

You have made assertions but have proved nothing other than you have no interest in context or a coherent interpretive model.

This is just one of those Bible fallacies that I like to point out too. Israel was a nation and a nation cannot keep the law. Only individuals can. A nation is not capable of making a decision to keep or not to keep God's law. Only individuals can. How can a nation abstain from pork or keep the Sabbath? If you are going to say "the people as a whole," what percentage? A nation sinning is like a chair sinning. Not possible.

Surprise! Malachi is a false prophet too.

Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it is a fallacy. Your ignorance of scripture is the only reason you do not understand. More accurately your unwillingness to even try to learn and discover a solution to the supposed “fallacy” is the real problem.

God chose the nation of Israel as his possession. He entered into covenant with her. He promised blessings or curses if she obeyed or disobeyed the law. You mention individual sins. I explained the different aspects of the law. The nation of Israel was ruled by kings. The king had much influence on the direction of the nation. Is the king supporting the priests and the sacrificial system? Are the Levites performing the sacrifices as detailed in the law? Is the nation keeping the civil laws pertaining to crime & justice?

Indeed the nation failed to keep the law and did experience the curses in the form of the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities.

Eze 39:23“And the nations will know that the people of Israel went into exile for their sin, because they were unfaithful to me. So I hid my face from them and handed them over to their enemies, and they all fell by the sword.”

Jeremiah 22:9 And the answer will be: 'Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD their God and have worshiped and served other gods.'"

We know from Daniel that there were faithful individuals exiled to Babylon. 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. The civil leaders and spiritual leaders had failed to keep the law and govern God’s people according to the law. Moreover they promoted the worship of idols.

Individual faithfulness notwithstanding, the nation had not kept the law.

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.

The constitution and Declaration of Independence speak for our nation also.

“Not possible” for a nation to sin you say. This is but another empty assertion based on your inability to understand. Certainly not on the bible.

Blessings,

Debate Round No. 4
brett.winstead

Pro

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...


snamor

Con


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,


Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mrsami 3 years ago
Mrsami
Page 7 (last Page )

Here is about most common "evidence" used by Christians about divinity of Jesus: Beginning from gospel of John is almost straight copy from text of Pthylo of Alexandria, Greek philosopher, who lived in 15 BC -30 AC. Only words "Word was God" is not in original text but in form "Word was God"s", that is in Greek small letter-error between two similar letters. Jesus even said that nobody (so certainly not disciplines he was talking to) has EVER heard voice of God or seen His face, and even though Jesus said that he is one with father, he also said that disciplines are one with him and God as well, so does Christians have 15 god"s?
Posted by Mrsami 3 years ago
Mrsami
Page 6
Claims that he became good have no basics, as we see result of his plan, and can see how much his teachings were in contradiction against Jesus (even though he claimed to be in his work, best way to get trust), and especially as we can see how Jesus warned about Paul and how Paul did his "mission" to destroy Christianity that threatened Jewish-religion (Paul was fundamentalist Jew when he was killing Christians) from inside, and how he did that by using pagans that understood Christianity completely in different way than Jews who were thought by other apostles (in many ways with similar methods and teachings, even though some of it was affected by Paul into wrong direction). If you would be trying to get somebody astray from teachings of Jesus, would you try to twist and use those teachings for it, or would you try to deny those completely and try teaching something completely new?

Jesus also made sure what "son of God" meant when he told (Joh.20:17) for Maria Magdalena that he is going to his father, and to theirs (Maria, disciplines, etc.) father, to his God and theirs God, or when he answered Jews accusing him claiming to be god "does not your scriptures say: "they were gods`", meaning that it was usual that Jewish prophets were called "sons of God". He also confirmed this all by saying that God has give life to him (John.6:57).
Posted by Mrsami 3 years ago
Mrsami
Page 5
As you see, Christians can be accepting Islam through Bible, even if they thought that it is corrupted, if given good and accurate enough explanations and descriptions. Proofs against Paul as evil who messed Christianity is important.

(31)

Also remember Matt.5:17-20, there Jesus told that law will not change even a bit until heavens and earth will vanish, and that whoever will teach otherwise will be called "most least" in heavens (=by those on heaven), meaning lowest hell where he is.

Paul taught that law had end into Jesus, even though Jesus claimed exact opposite as you see from part above, Jesus did not claim to "fulfil law". Jesus did not even claim that for salvation belief into crucifixion is needed, and he did not even say it is going to happen for real or ask to call him "son of God". Paul even taught (Gal.5:2) that who is going to be circumcised, cannot be saved (although Jesus himself was circumcised and as a "god" did not order before his birth not to circumcise, to give an example).

Jesus even told that satan is thief, killer and liar and will never change (and that those who have killed even one of followers of Jesus are always going to be astray), and Paul was all those, stealing crops of Jesus by killing and lying, Paul even claimed that he had witnessed resurrection of Jesus as his "gospel is witness for it". Jesus even told he was send only for "lost lambs of children of Israel", and told about people who will go beyond seas into far away lands to get even one convert, so that they can make him even more certainly food for fire of hell than what themselves already are, that sounds what Paul (and even modern missionaries) did.
Posted by Mrsami 3 years ago
Mrsami
Page 4
Until (late) 20th century Koran was not even translated to most European languages, and there were only few Muslims in Europe. In Asia Islam has been for thousand years everywhere (33% population Muslims), but in China and Vietnam/Laos communism and relatively small/local Muslim-populations postpone knowledge about Islam and so full judgment on "pagans", in Africa (50% Muslims) nearly only rainforest and southern areas were animistic (now Christian) where Islam had not arrived. So in fact pagans have either knew about Islam, accept it or not and be judged, or not knew about it. Christians have always KNEW ABOUT ISLAM as it has been their rivalry and very close to them, but they have NOT KNOWN what ISLAM IS ABOUT (for People of the Book this matches same as total lack of knowledge for pagan).

When that time is up, and knowledge of Islam has come for everyone (like in internet), no Christian has no excuse why they did not learn about Islam, then curse of Paul has its full affect, and many are going to hell because of him. On the other hand, Jesus told about shepherd who got that one lost sheep out of hundred back to safety in desert/mountain (depends on evangelium, both describe very well dominative natural conditions in Muslim-countries), that represents those few chosen one"s from Christians who through Bible understood that Islam is right religion (like me), and possibly move to Islamic country in safety (no need anymore for that in secularism, but in middle ages definitely, if pagans had ruled in Europe/America/Africa, then not one had got alive into Muslim-world).
Posted by Mrsami 3 years ago
Mrsami
Page 3As Paul had permission from apostles to teach pagans (Jesus himself said in Matt.15:24 that "I have not been sent but for lost sheep"s of house of Israel", and in the end mission-order meant "nations" of Israel, as there had been 13 of them), and had permission not to "bother" them by Torah or law, most pagan-Christians did not understand correctly "son of God"-term. After Jewish Christianity was almost totally wiped out by Romans in destruction of Jerusalem, pagan-Christians did came as dominant sect of Christianity and modern churches are based on their beliefs.

Paul tried to kill ALL Christians, he had army for that, but noticed that Christians just flew to other towns ("turn other cheek" and spread their message. So he understood that only possibility is to destroy threat to Judaism from inside, spreading twisted form of faith to large areas until it overcomes rest. He even send Ananias ("new Christian" according to Bible) before him to confirm his "revelations of Jesus" to another Christians, and so got credibility among Christians. That is evil. What gives more credibility to Paul than for example to Mormon-prophet Joseph Smith, who also claimed to have seen Jesus? Of course that was will of Allah too, but there is a time-limit until full responsibility is over People of the Book (Quran 2:62, and in 65:7 "Allah puts no burden on any person beyond what He has given him".), that separates them from pagans who are not judged only if they are "people without knowledge (about Islam)", and have not be introduced to Islam (as it is almost everywhere in Asia and Africa introduced, but still lack of literacy and information, like internet, is limiting knowledge about Islam there, as it has arrived so to west especially).
Posted by Mrsami 3 years ago
Mrsami
Page 2
As in Dead Sea Scrolls, which read of the sons of God, and Greek version, which reads of the angels of god. Can word of God have so great conflict in matter so important, dividing religions? Problem really is in interpretations and understanding past times. Old Testament (Jewish) Bible is full of "sons of God" (son written with big first letter is Greek invention, as Hebrew does not have small or big letters), and so is called almost all prophets in Bible, even Adam (who had not even mother according to Bible, Koran does not deny even that he had mother/(HUMAN!)father, see beginning of astronomy/human development links and introduction). But times of persecution Matt.24:23-28 is talking about, came:

Thing is that it is FIGURE OF SPEECH for Jews, words describing someone very important for God (even Jesus himself answered accusations about using word "son of God" that "doesn"t your writings say: "they were gods"?". Adam, Jacob, Saul, David, Salomon, Jesus.... and many others, enough examples? Just write "son of god" into search engine on some Bible-site and you see. Jews understood that, as according to acts of apostles Jews allowed Christians to use synagogues even though they knew how Jesus was called, as Jews themselves have had prophets who were accepted by many other Jews but not by all. Jews never would have let Christians to worship Jesus as god in synagogue, so that is proof that early Christians thought him only as prophet. In fact EVERYTHING is figure of speech, as speech has only meanings that has been given for it. That is why in Islam Allah has 99 extra-names. He just shows that He makes us to call Him as He wishes. Jesus called Allah as "Father" because he wanted to make distinction between Jewish names of God and coming of Islam, to reduce conflicts on that. But situation changed:
Posted by Mrsami 3 years ago
Mrsami
Don't believe Paul, this guy is a deceiver, Jesus wormed you from him

PAUL, BEAST ("WOLF IN LAMBS CLOTHING") HIMSELF!

Notice how Jesus described false prophets as Paul described himself, by words (doing) "SIGNS" and "MIRACLES":

Matt.24:23. "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24. For false Christ"s and false prophets will appear and perform great SIGNS and MIRACLES to deceive even the elect (disciplines) - if that were possible. 25. See, I have told you ahead of time (told YOU, disciplines, as a warning). 26. "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' (Paul"s "Jesus revelation" on road to Damascus) do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' ("Jesus-revelation" in prison) do not believe it (Mohammed did not claim to have seen Jesus in desert/house, nor say to be Messiah/Christ, but Paul "prophesied" for example about persecutions of Christians in future, that were already reality and so not prophecy at all, and even claimed to be wittness to resurrection of Jesus, so God soon killed him as He promised to do in Deut.18:20-22 for ALL false prophets)".28. Wherever the corpse is (new religion), there the vultures will gather (satan strikes)."

2.Corinth.12:12. "When I was with you, I certainly gave you every proof that I am truly an apostle, sent to you by God himself. For I patiently did many SIGNS and wonders and MIRACLES among you."

From Dead Sea scrolls of Qumran, it can be clearly seen that Deut.32:8 declared that Jews were not only nation to have prophets, as Christians and Jews claim, but that "sons of God" have been given to numerous nations as Islam teaches. This is how this part went in Greek text:

"When the Most High assigned lands to the nations, when he divided up the human race, he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of (Qumran: "sons of God") angelic beings."

.....More
Posted by brett.winstead 4 years ago
brett.winstead
Defool, I don't really get where the confusion is. A prophet is someone who supposedly speaks the words of God. Paul's writings supposedly did just that. The whole debate was about an assumption that if the rest of the Bible sans Paul were prophetic, then Paul could not be since he had completely different ideas on what makes man righteous - believing in Jesus, not keeping the law outlined by the OT God and by even the other apostles who supposedly knew Jesus personally. Paul was the only Bible writer who taught that man was born in sin with some kind of sin nature, a birth defect. This is completely unheard of in ancient or modern day Judaism.
Posted by snamor 4 years ago
snamor
@DeFool

"...in case they are of interest to the competitors."

Very interested! Thanks for your comments. I am new to this site and to formal debates in general. Excellent points.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I have not voted in this debate yet, and I may never. I cannot evaluate it fairly without dedicating at least an hour to it.

I have, however, read over the first two rounds, and have posted my observations below, in case they are of interest to the competitors.
No votes have been placed for this debate.