Paul was a false prophet: Original sin and the law

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,