Paul was a false prophet: Original sin and the law

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.