Defense of Paul 2, Paul - Harder.

This post is a refute to the "logic" that can be found here. It is the second video put out by Justin "Best" of Christian truthers, part one of the refute can be found here.

Right off the bat, Justin freely admits to rejecting correction to those who stated that they once struggled with Paul and then reasoned out the scriptures with harmony. He states that he used to be against Paul, then for Paul, and is now against Paul again. This presents by his own admission a double minded man that is unstable in doctrine as James 1:8 warns against.

Justin makes the claim that others are saying that having to look up a verse makes him inferior in knowledge and wisdom. I haven't heard this said. I'm not saying that it wasn't said, but merely that I haven't heard that from any of the refutations of this heretical stance that Best has taken.

1. Justin only affirms Matthew, Mark, John,  1 John ,2nd John ,3rd John , James, 1 Peter, Jude and Rev. 
2. He discounts Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians,  2 Corinthians , Galatians, Ephesians , Colossians . 1 Thes. 2. Thes. 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus, Philemon
3. He is on the fence regarding Hebrews. 

This should be enough to discredit him. He's thrown out half of the New Testament. In Justin's zeal to justify a faulty reasoning and hammer a false understanding to fit the text, he dismisses Luke. When dismissing Luke, he removes specific details only found in luke:

It gives details of Jesus’ infancy found in no other Gospel: the census of Caesar Augustus, the journey to Bethlehem, Jesus’ birth, the adoration of the shepherds, Jesus’ circumcision, the words of Simeon, and Jesus at age 12 in the temple talking with the doctors of the law. It also is the only Gospel to give an account of the Ascension. Among the notable parables found only in Luke’s Gospel are those of the good Samaritan and the prodigal son.

Justin remarks that the original scriptures one only needed the Torah and the prophets, why should we even listen to Paul because he's not the Messiah and didn't even spend time with the Messiah while He was on earth. The response to this is simple. Yeshua showed Himself using the torah in the prophets to people that saw Him firsthand. We were not there in the 1st century. When we discard the accounts of HOW He fulfilled Torah, then we untermine His Messiahship, next thing we know we look for anyone that might fit our understanding of the scriptures or, having already discarded half or all the New Testament, we begin to whittle away the prophets  as well.

Justin cites 1 John 2:18 as a warning against anti-christs.

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

This can and should be applied to Simon Magnus, ironically the founder of Gnosticism where sensationalists hyper spiritualise texts and interpretations. Sensationalists  hold to heretical and discredited books such and enoch and jasper.  Simon Magnus was at one time a convert which was among them, he and Peter had odds and Simon Magnus went out from them.
"The Apostolic Constitutions" also accuses him of "lawlessness". This text applies more for Simon Magnus than it does Paul.  Justin also cites 2 John 7- 11

 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Justin Makes the claim that these anti-christs are referring to Paul, and then looks for evidence to support his conclusions. This is like a criminal investigation that says "Paul is guilty" arresting him and then looking for reasons why he's guilty.. instead of finding out who actually committed the crimes in question. If Justin hadn't discarded 1 Tim 3:16 he would see that 2 John doesn't refer to Paul as saying that Christ hadn't come in the flesh, because Paul says that He did.

By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.

Justin cites Acts 9, intending to reference verse 26 to say that Paul was not with them...

26 When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.

but accidentally cites 29

And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord.

Justin tries to make the inference that Paul was "sent away" in verse 31 as being "cast out". The context phrasing denotes a commission in the authority of the Apostles, as supported by 2 Peter and Acts. His reasoning denotes a rejection of Paul, which scripture does not support.  Justin renders that Paul was "Sent away" as in dismissed instead of "sent out" as in commissioned in Acts 15

 So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. 32 Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message. 33 After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out. 34 [But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.] 35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching with many others also, the word of the Lord.

Justin falsely attributes to Paul as the source of "not having peace" in Acts 15 and elsewhere. Even though the surrounding text states that people that were not Paul brought up the strife

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 

So Justin is saying that Paul was the source of this strife but that is contrary to what the scripture says. Justin tries to make a doctrine of" Kanye/ Taylor" style feud between Paul and the Disciples but the text does not support this made up doctrine. Why Justin is even using Acts to try and support his view when he doesn't believe that Acts is valid is also concerning, is the book accurate or not accurate? He can't have it both ways.  He says that after Paul left peace descended on the situation, and Justin ignores the parts where they rejoiced and were encouraged while he was there. He continues in Acts 21

When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 

Note that Justin over looks verse 27 where the Jews were the ones stirring up the crowd, not Paul.
Justin uses this as justification to say that Paul was teaching against the Law and that Paul was causing trouble. Justin stopped short of the explanation of why they were mad- the ASSUMPTIONS that the people were making.

For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. 

This by no means was Paul's fault. James refutes Justin's claim that Paul was teaching against the Law in the same chapter a few verses up...

After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. ...” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

So, the rumors and gossip about Paul are the very thing that Justin is trying to say. James says do this sacrifice and pay the expenses so that THERE IS NO TRUTH TO THE RUMOR, and then PAUL TOOK THE MEN THE NEXT DAY . Scripture is showing that the claim that Justin is making is exactly what is false. Justin makes the claim that there was peace with all the other disciples and then there was chaos around Paul. Does he just ignore Acts 4 and 5 where John and Peter were beat down and imprisoned, of the fact that everyone eventually was crucified, Peter upside down? Where does Justin get this fairy tale that they were all sitting around like in the country club until that rascal Paul hopped the fence and crashed their scotch sipping time? Its a total fabrication.

Justin says that this fits Johns criteria, that because Paul did not continue with them then he is not of them. Paul did continue with them, as in, He held to the faith until martyrdom (its believed he was beheaded as as a Roman citizen for appealing all the way to Caesar)  unlike ... Simon Magus/ Simon the Sorcerer who after being baptised decided that he was God and opposed Peter and the rest of the faith.

Simon Magus was the founder of a Gnostic sect. In Acts viii. 9-13 he is represented as having been held in awe by the Samaritans as the manifestation of the hidden power of God, and as being called by them "The Great One." He is said to have allowed himself to be baptized by the apostle Philip; but, owing to his greediness, he relapsed into sorcery. While this story is legendary, Justin relates ("Apologia," i. 26, 56) that he was born in Gitta, a Samaritan village, and that he traveled together with a woman named Helena, whom he declared to be the "First Intelligence," he himself claiming to be the first manifestation of the hidden power of God. He went to Rome and performed miracles before the emperor Claudius; and the people erected statues to him. The legendary character of this story has been proved by the fact that the statue said to have been erected to him with the inscription "Semoni Sancto Deo Fidio" has been discovered, and it proves to have been dedicated to an ancient Roman deity.- Jewish encyclopedia

Baptised by Philip = having been with us, Relapsed into sorcery = did not remain with us.
Justin cites Galatians 2:9 to imply that Paul was sent away meaning cast out and not sent away as in commissioned, even though Acts 15 they were sending men with Paul... which is not something you do if you are excommunicating someone but it is what you do if you are commissioning them. Justin "Best" starts with a flawed premise and continues to build upon his wrong notions.
Justin again makes the claim via 1 John 4:2-3 that Paul is an anti-christ because Justin claims Paul does not claim that Yeshua came in the flesh even though as noted above in 1 Timothy 3:16, Justin is wrong.  Justin tries to claim that Romans 8:3 is a Paul teaching that Yeshua did not come in the flesh by stating that he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. This does not mean that Paul is saying that Yeshua did not come in the flesh.  Paul is saying that Yeshua came in flesh that is LIKE SINFUL flesh, but is not SINFUL flesh. Where there is simple distinction, Justin puts his own narrow view and bastardizes the text into saying something that it isn't saying, just as he just did in Acts.  He goes into the definition of the word likeness, but again, the issue is SIN and not Flesh. This is scriptural slight of hand and misdirection.
Justin cites Philippians 2:7-8

but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

God emptying Himself and taking on the flesh of Man is not denying that the Messiah came in Flesh.  Speaking of the vastness of GOD who is worthy of ultimate Worship and Service, came as a servant, Justin oversimplifies as he does on other things, and reduces this big issue to his own shoehorned doctrine. If we apply Justin's logic here, we must also apply it to James (who Justin hasn't thrown out yet) James 3:9

With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God

Does that mean that we now gnosticize a doctrine that everyone is literally God? Absolutely not.
Justin uses a lot of wordplay and hairsplitting and accusations against Paul, but all of it is speculation in order to fit his doctrine and does not reference Paul stating in 1 Tim 3:16 Messiah came in flesh.
Just keeps asserting that Paul does not meet the criteria of his understanding of Johns words regarding Anti-christs, and is leaning heavily on his own understanding. Justin ignores all the warnings about adding or taking away books to the Bible and that irony is not lost on me.
Justin cites 1 John 4:6 to state that  Paul was not of the Disciples, that he didn't learn from them and calls them names.

We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

He states that Paul is not in agreement with them and cites Galatians 2:6

But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me

 "Best" states that Paul is referring to the disciples as them who were of high reputation. Paul at the beginning of the chapter states:

Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

If we look at this in context we see two groups, Men of reputation, and the Apostles. What do we see in Acts 15?

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 

 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

Its the same thing. Those who were of high reputation = Pharisees, vs the Apostles. Paul affirms the Apostles in contrast to the Pharisees,  in which the entire book of Galatians is written to refute the Pharisees.

and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

Paul goes on to rebuke Peter for submitting to the Pharisees instead of God, and he was 100% correct to do so.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Justin  goes on a monologue making up a whole story about the Apostles not being able to teach Paul anything new and how they didn't teach him anything.  This is a fabrication of what was really being said. Paul stating that he sat at Gamaliel's feet for three years in order to learn what he did, does not mean that He was in opposition to the Disciples or that they didn't teach him anything. Its like stating I went to Harvard and they went to Yale, but we both have degrees in the same field. Furthermore, Justin's claim that Paul was thumbing his nose at the authority of the Disciples is refuted in the text itself

Acts 15 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

Galatians 2  It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles

Why would Paul be submitting himself to their authority and council if he was in opposition to their authority and council. That doesn't make any sense UNLESS Paul was not being what Justin is saying that he was being. Justin again makes the false claim that Paul was not listening to the Apostles. Justin's justification of rejecting Paul as rebuking Peter to mean that Paul is not in agreement with everything Peter does, Justin must reject Messiah as Messiah also rebuked Peter when Peter was in error by that reasoning.

Justin cites Acts 19:8-10 as Paul getting discouraged in Asia. The point he's trying to make falters, because not everyone listened to the Messiah either, and the Messiah asked His own Disciples "will you leave me too" after the crowd didn't like His "eat of my flesh drink of my blood" comments. He cites 2 Tim 1:15 as another witness that people in Asia were not receptive to His message.

Ok, not this is dishonest. Justin NOW cites in Acts 21 that the Jews in Asia go after him, the verse that refutes what Justin was saying prior about Paul preaching against the Law of God. Justin has just refuted his own claims.
Justin makes a leap to say that since Paul encountered resistance in Asia, Then Paul must be the false one in Revelation 2

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this:
2 ‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

There is no mention of Paul, nor should there be, especially when the context fits the heretic Simon Magus, who traveled through Asia and all over planting churches in his name.

 Simon traveled throughout the ancient world—from Palestine and Syria, to Caesarea and Antioch, to Egypt and Rome—forging churches of his new teachings wherever he went with his paramour Helena.  According to Saint Justin (or Justin the Martyr), Simon was purportedly deified for a period in Rome under the reign of Claudius, as his powers seemed to be vast and godlike in the eyes of the still pagan citizens.

Again, Justin claims that Paul was teaching against the Law of God and James proved that He was not. At 28 minutes (yeah, we're not even a half hour in) Justin asks was there any other Apostle that was kicked out of Asia other than Paul- and I again affirm- Simon Magus/ Simon the Sorcerer. Justin still attributes this to Paul, which is ironic because the disciples of Simon Magus were anti-Paul- which is the platform that Justin is espousing.
Justin goes on to cite Rev 2:14

But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality. 15 So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 

Justin attributes this to Paul, but Balaam was... a SORCERER just like SIMON THE SORCERER.. Paul wasn't a Sorcerer. It also mentioned the Nicolaitans

 A term appearing in the Revelation (2:6, 15) describing members of Christian congregations who held a doctrine that the Lord hated. Irenaeus said that they were followers of Nicolaus of Antioch, a proselyte who was among the seven men chosen to serve the Jerusalem congregation (Acts 6:5), who had forsaken true Christian doctrine; he said they lived in unrestrained indulgence (Against Heresies I; 26:3). Hippolytus confirmed this by noting that Nicolaus left correct doctrine and had the habit of indifference as to what a man ate and as to how he lived (Refutation of Heresies 7:24). The Apostolic Constitutions (6:8) described them as “shameless in uncleanness.”... In the letter to the church at Pergamum the Nicolaitans were associated closely with those people who held the teaching of Balaam.- Encyclopedia of the Bible 

The Nicolaitans also ascribed to the teaching of Balaam the sorcerer. Paul. Never. Did. Justin tries to make the case that Paul teaches to disregard uncleanliness and sexual immorality, except Paul clearly states to avoid these things  1 cor 6:18

Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.

and 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
“I will dwell in them and walk among them;
And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
17 “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord.
“And do not touch what is unclean;
And I will welcome you.
18 “And I will be a father to you,
And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,”
Says the Lord Almighty.

 Justin again misinterprets  1 cor 8:4-8, This can be refuted here.
 This man is like a baby with a handgun in his reasoning. Dangerous and going to get innocent people hurt.
Justin states that Marcion of Sinope was a disciple of Paul in order to discredit Paul.
 Does Judas discredit Yeshua? Never. Does a disciple that was formerly of Paul that goes rogue mean that Paul taught him to do so? No. If a parent tells a kid that stealing is wrong and they grow up and rob a bank, do you arrest the parents? No. What Justin tried to do is discredit by association and if he does this, then the Messiah is discredited by knowing each of us.

Justin calls out Marcion as being a heretic, and then bring up that Marcion had his own cannon adding and taking away books of the Bible... the Irony that Justin is doing that here seems to be oblivious to him.
Justin says that anyone that has stumbled by misunderstanding Paul can attribute their stumble to Paul, which again is very ironic for a man that is literally removing 2/3 of the New Testament, and throwing Luke and Acts in the garbage.

Justin cited 2 Cor 12

11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody. 12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles. 13 For in what respect were you treated as inferior to the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not become a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!

One commentary says this:

Once again he speaks with distaste of this whole wretched business of self-justification; but the thing has got to be gone through. That he should be discredited might be a small thing, but that his gospel should be rendered ineffective is something that cannot be allowed.

Pauls entire ministry has been in the shadow of his former life having persecuted followers of the way. Paul in context seems to be reasoning that he labored on their behalf just as the others, That he performed the work of the apostle just as they did. He's not boasting in all that he's done, He's explaining that even though in his former life he was one thing, He's repented and has spent a great deal of time showing the fruit of his labor. He's done this without asking anything from those he's laboring for.
It is worth noting that much of Justin's points in the second video were already refuted in his first one. It's in part a case of Filibustering, Keep talking so that people give up and let you win.

Justin cited Acts 18 as justification to reject Paul taking the word of the critics of Paul instead of the word of James that assured us that there was no truth to these rumors.

But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat, 13 saying, “This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.” 14 But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews,

"Best" makes the claim that either Paul was teaching against the Torah or he was a bad teacher, because they interpreted him as teaching against the Torah. As refuted in the first post I again cite Acts 6:10-14 using Justin's same logic, He must deny the Messiah

But they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” 12 And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came up to him and dragged him away and brought him before the Council. 13 They put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” 

1. they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit
That is reason enough for the crowd to attack Paul, just as they attacked Stephen, Just as they attacked Yeshua.
2. They secretly induced men to say
by "Best"'s logic, it doesn't matter that they were liars and false, the fact that they understood Stephen and Yeshua to be false means that they were false, and as such we must apply that to Paul.
3.They stirred up the people and the elders.
Justin makes a big deal about the Asia church giving Paul a hard time but is not honest with the opposition that Stephen and Yeshua faced.
4. They put forward FALSE WITNESSES.
The fact that the crowd was saying that Paul was teaching against the law is indicative of them being a false witness when you factor that:

• A.we understand that Paul was NOT teaching against the law by other reasoning that better fit the texts
• B. James makes Paul to do a vow to SHOW them that there is no truth to the rumor that he's speaking against the law
• C.Paul states that He isn't violating the law

I want to expound upon the flaw in hyper literalism that Justin is using. Look at John 5:18, this is either going to lead to him rejecting Messiah or fixing the broken logic that he's using.

For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

Using Justin's Logic, Yeshua broke the Sabbath. It says right there. He broke the Sabbath. The Text says that. If He broke the Sabbath, then He sinned and is not the Messiah. We know He didn't break the Sabbath, He broke their interpretation of the Sabbath, as Picking heads of grain is not a violation of the Torah and is outlined in Deuteronomy 23:25.  The same narrow focus and hyper literalism ignores the Deuteronomy 23:25, and zeros in on the fact that it expressly states that He broke the Sabbath. Now Justin has to either, revise the narrow scope of his belief,  or throw out the book of John as he seems comfortable doing with anything that doesn't fit with his understanding, or deny the Messiah.  Look at this passage in John referring to the crowd and their motives

47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

Are we to say that the church in Revelation is like this crowd and that they expelled Yeshua for being false? This is where the logic goes, to all sorts of unstable doctrines and strange fire.
Justin highlights verse 15 to suggest that Paul was teaching a different name or law than the Torah

But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you; 15 but if there are questions about words and names and your own law, look after it yourselves; I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters.”

but the simple answer is that The Roman guy doesn't care about Hebrew stuff. It isn't proof Paul is preaching a different Law or Torah or a different Name of God.
Justin goes on to malign  1 cor 9

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

He states that Paul here is conforming to whatever worldly image he needs to in order to gather disciples unto himself. This would be an excellent point if it wasn't totally false. 119 ministries breaks this down  In a nutshell, Paul is speaking about how you preach Yeshua to someone who has a framework of a Torah background vs preaching Yeshua to someone who knows nothing of a doctrinal background. Its about bridging the understanding gaps, Not abandoning faith to be whatever it is worldy thing  in order to make disciples for himself.  In fact when you look over the totality of suffering that Paul went through on behalf of the gospel, it makes zero sense that he endures shipwrecks and snakes and beatings and imprisonment all just to make a buddy. That's stupid. That's really stupid. I'm talking you have to deliberately ignore so much just to believe that.

Justin points out that we're not to be conformed to the world and says that is what Paul was doing when he wasn't. He goes to cite passages that say to not be conformed to the world and admonishes that people should already be familiar with these passages and he shouldn't even have to look them up, which, again, is super ironic considering his remarks at the beginning.

He cites James 4:4 and makes the claim that Paul is being a friend to the world by preaching the gospel to them in a way that they can understand. What Paul is expressing  is in the passage is what the example of Yeshua is in John 4 where He meets the woman at the well where she is at and bridges the gap in understanding. Was Yeshua being worldly by sitting with an unmarried woman who was sleeping around and presenting the Gospel to her? NO. Would Paul be had he done the same thing? No.
Justin cites 1 john 3:13 to try and back up his claim that Paul shouldn't conform to the world...

 Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.

...When all he actually does is undermine every argument he had about the crowd being against Paul.   He does the same thing with John 15:18

"Best" quotes Deuteronomy to state that we should not worship God in the ways of the pagans and that we should tear down their altars and pillars.  He makes the false statement that Paul is not adhering to this by understanding where someone is coming from in order to refute their position.

Justin keeps saying "I think its perfectly clear" but, He's also the one that said that Muhammad and Joseph smith copied Paul even though they lived long after Paul died. This guy's doctrine is garbage and tracks like snoer logic.

Justin makes the claim that Ebionites and the Nazarenes did not endorse Paul. Again, that is meaningless. Lots of cults twist Christ. The Mormons make the claim that Jesus came to America and hand a whole bunch of wacky adventures even though thats not biblical.  Islam says that Jesus is a prophet instead of the Messiah, that has no bearing on the authority of and truth of both the scriptures or Yeshua.

Matt 16: 6 is cited  as is Mark 8:15

 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

15 And He was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”

Justin uses this to try to discredit Paul stating that he was a Pharisee of Pharisees. Justin is making the claim that Since Yeshua is warning about the leaven of the Pharisees and since Paul says he was "a Pharisee of Pharisees" then we should  reject Paul. One problem with this is that in the following verses he counts it as garbage, not boasting

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ

Justin is ascribing to Paul guilt for what he was pre conversion.  Also of note that Pharisee of Pharisees is not what the greek renders, it says Hebrew of Hebrews.  but perhaps if that hinders that rigged trial that Paul is being put through, Justin should ignore it.

Justin blames Paul for all the problems in Christianity and Christianity not following Torah. Never mind Church history and the decree of the catholics in 363 A.D. that stated that everything Jewish is heresy

The Church of Rome ( Catholics) made the following declarations in the city of Laodicea:  Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D....
Canon 29: Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord's Day [Sunday]; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found judaizers, let them be anathema (detestable) from Christ.
Canon 37-39: It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them. (God’s Holy Days)
It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.Thou shalt not keep feasts with Hebrews or heretics, nor receive festival offerings from them. Light hath no communion with darkness. Therefore no Christian should celebrate a feast with heretics or Jews, neither should he receive anything connected with these feasts such unleavened bread and the like."

Its again, ironic but this is the pattern Justin is treating the works of Paul. Justin keeps scapegoating and railroading Paul based on circumstantial evidence that doesn't fit, and preconceived conclusions that he goes to gather "evidence" to support.
Justin doubles back to the mention of Herod in Mark as cited above and pivots to acts 13:1

Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

He makes the connection that Paul knew a guy that knew Herod. He's now making doctrine using the 6 degrees from kevin Bacon theory. He states that Herod was going to set Paul free. So what. If anything was here then the leaven would be Manaen, not Paul. But it isn't. I'd say this is bad scholarship but that would be calling it scholarship. This is bad gossip using the Bible. Sensationalists look for special knowledge, Just like in the garden. He states that Herod would have let Paul go had he not appealed to caesar. Well, He didn't let him go. What does that do for your doctrine. It hurts it.

Justin makes a reference to Paul "laying on of hands" with exodus 7:11 on the screen making the implication that Paul was doing secret arts and not in fact... DOING WHAT JAMES SAYS  in James 5.  Justin goes to Exodus 7:22 to point out that evil has secret evil magic powers that they do, and he makes the accusation that it is Paul doing Evil and not God working through Paul. Woe to those that call evil good and good evil.  He goes to Matthew  7:22-23 and 24:24

 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them

He states that it is possible that this applies to Paul, but doesn't understand that there was an ACTUAL sorcerer in those days who said he was Christ, made churches after himself, performed many miracles, drew people out into the wilderness. That dudes name... WAS SIMON MAGUS
Look what was spoken of Simon Magus

So astounding were Simon's powers to heal and perform wonders – turning stones into bread, travelling through the air, standing unharmed in fire, assuming various shapes, causing heavy objects to move and opening locked doors without contact – that the early Church Fathers made no attempt to deny them. Rather, they argued that since such things could be done only in the name of Jesus – and their own performances often left something to be desired – or through demonic means, it followed that Simon must be in league with the devil. They could not but agree, nevertheless, that he fully deserved the title Magus, for he was a magician of the highest order. Simon laughed at this ludicrous apostolic rationalization and pointed to its dogmatic core – that Jesus alone in the whole of human history was the exclusive Son of God. Pointing out that Jesus made no such claim, Simon taught that every being who attains divine knowledge through self-discipline and meditation upon the divine is a Son of God and evinces seemingly superhuman powers and knowledge. 

Instead of squeezing Paul into a place he does not fit, and a context that does not work, and discarding his writings, and ripping out Acts, and 2nd Peter, and the Gospel of Luke,  and saying that James was wrong when he affirmed Paul.... wouldn't the more likely explanation be that Justin Best hasn't done enough research in the right things but instead has favored a mistake, and continues to build upon that error because he's spent so much time making it

Justin tries to make Paul out to be the beast of Revelation because in chapter 13 it mentions false signs. This is as flimsy and see through as a wet hospital gown.
Justin makes the claim Paul's first miracle was blinding a man and  that the Spirit of God is never used to hurt people. In Acts 5 we see this

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it.

That dude got smoked by the Holiest of Spirit.  I wont even cite the time that Yeshua killed a fig tree with words because He was hangry even though its one of my favorite things in the Bible.  Justin  twists what is left of the scriptures that he's using to say that because Messiah healed a blind man then the Spirit is never used for harm therefore Paul is using dark arts to blind a guy. This is nonsense.

 Judges 14
Then Samson went down to Timnah with his father and mother, and came as far as the vineyards of Timnah; and behold, a young lion came roaring toward him. 6 The Spirit of the Lord came upon him mightily, so that he tore him as one tears a young goat though he had nothing in his hand; but he did not tell his father or mother what he had done.

Justin does mention ananias to be fair.
Justin says he's been studying anti-Paul stuff for 2 years and says ok, provided refutes. That's what I am and have been doing. I don't know why its taken him two years to find easily refuted claims. I don't know where he's been looking or if its an issue with not wanting to find the answers.
Justin now takes issue with the blessing, yes BLESSING of Benjamin.  He links Matt 7

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
The Two Foundations
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

 He says

1.  That false prophets come in sheeps clothing but are inwardly ravenous wolves.  Justin attributes this to the tribe of Benjamin, Instead of Simon who came to them being baptised by Philip- Just as a sheep would... but inwardly was a ravenous wolf- false disciple.
2. Justin makes the comparison that Benjamites are wolves.  If this were the case, why does Benjamin still have a gate at the temple. If this was the case why does the tribe return in Revelation. Justin is using poor wordplay to make the text say something its not, watch.
3. Justin doesn't reference the other blessing of Benjamin found in Deuteronomy 33
   
   Of Benjamin he said“ May the beloved of the Lord dwell in security by Him,Who shields him all the day,And he dwells between His shoulders.”

Take a look at this.

Matt 27:5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself

Matt 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

By taking two similar points of imagery and putting them side by side, It creates the illusion that Judas was denying himself and following Messiah to the grave. Judas threw the silver, and Yeshua said what would it profit a man. Do you see how a bad and false doctrine comes from building off of a flawed and twisted premise! Judas hung himself with guilt after BETRAYING the Savior, not out of noble obedience refusing to be bought. Justin is using this same tactic in how he's twisting the scriptures to lead people away from the integrity of the word of God. Like it or not, Justin is saying that God is incapable of preserving the integrity of His own word.  Justin is being deceived and he's leading others astray. His reasoning is bankrupt. He is making a false doctrine on conjecture, assumptions, misinterpretations, twisting scriptures.

Justin goes back to say that the strong man builds his house on Peter. He thinks that Messiah is contrasting that Peter/ Rock is against Paul/ Benjamin/ Wolf. This is confirmation bias. This looks like proof that Peter hates Paul because Justin wants that to be true because that supports all the work he's done under the assumption that Paul man bad. Except, that isn't the reality. That isn't the truth when James affirms him, when Peter affirms him, when Barnabas and the others welcome him warmly and are encouraged by his testimony and are glad at how many are hearing and believing because of Paul's ministry. Justin is the very warning that Peter gave us about ignorant and unstable men who distort the truth to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3
 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Don't rip this warning out of your Bible like Justin is doing. Take Peters advice