1. Paul's testimony of his conversion is inconsistent at best, and has a very close resemblance to the conversion of Joseph Smith and Muhammed.
First off, That is a pretty bold statement for "Best" to make. Pauls conversion isn't like Joseph Smiths as Pauls conversion involves others that can attest to it. Acts 9
Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
We have no reason to discount Ananias' account of Paul's conversion. Also we take Stephens word that he saw the Messiah as he was being stoned to death, why should we doubt Pauls word about his conversion as it is backed by the fruit of a believer detailed in Acts.
Secondly,
Paul 10 AD. - 64 AD.
Muhammed 571 AD- 632 AD
Joseph Smith 1805 AD- 1844 AD
How exactly did Paul plagiarized his conversion from people that lived 500- 1700 years after him? This point alone should discredit the reasoning and "logic" for the rest of the post.
Third, the three passages of Paul's conversion don't contradict. They just add more details depending on the audience. We don't say that Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 contradict because they give different accounts of creation, we understand that it is one account of creation but told with specific details and elaboration. This is a common thing.
2. Paul changed his own name, the Most High did not.So? That has nothing to do with anything. Paul had a Roman name and Hebrew name. I know a lot of Messianics that re-name themselves in the faith, does this mean that they're not of faith?
3. Paul doesn't meet the criteria for apostleship according to the Book of Acts 1:21-22
Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.Paul is a witness Yeshua's Resurrection. He had a conversation with Him on the road to Damascus. He went on to proclaim (witnessing) Christ as raised from the dead.
1 Cor 15
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
4. Paul claims the title of apostle to the gentiles, a role given explicitly to Peter.Where does it say that it is a role given specifically to Peter? Unwittingly "Best" gets into circular reasoning by pointing to Acts 10 as support for his claim. By using Acts to make his claim, he's asserting the credibility of the book of Acts, and that encompasses the conversion of Paul. So, either
Acts must be thrown out because it affirms paul
Or
Acts is true, and therefore cannot be used to discredit paul
5. Paul was rejected and sent away from the 12 apostles on multiple occasions.
To cite Acts 9:26...
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.And squeeze that into a context of rejecting Paul is outright dishonest when you look at the following verse that states that Barny vouched for him.
But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death.Not only was Paul brought to the Apostles, but Barnabas AFFIRMS PAUL'S CONVERSION. Scripture refutes the first point objection to this very post.
6. Paul teaches against circumcision and then deflects when confronted.To cite 1 Corinthians 7:19 as Paul disregarding circumcision is to not only ignore the context but to ignore half of the verse in order to shoehorn it in to a pre-determined bias.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.Paul is not speaking against keeping the Law of God here. Paul goes on to make the analogy
Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave.The goal is obedience out of faith. He's speaking against the idea that you must become something and then be saved. Gentiles (uncircumcision) do not need to convert to Judaism (circumcision) in order to be saved (Acts 15). Reading the verse in right context it says something like "Being Jewish is meaningless, and being Gentile is meaningless, what matters is that you are obedient to God"
7. Paul calls the actual disciples hypocrites.
Yeah, He does that because Peter was engaged in Hypocrisy. Do we throw out the scriptures where Nathan rebukes David for his hypocrisy regarding the murder of Uriah? Peter isn't infallible, I don't care what the catholics say.
8. The only source of Paul's confirmation (2 Peter) wasn't written by Peter.First of all, we're seeing the slippery slope of throwing out other books to try and make a doctrine fit.
Second, Peter says he wrote 2 Peter in verse 1.
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,The only person i've heard saying that Peter wasn't written by Peter is Mr. Best who has an agenda to discredit Paul
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
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.
9. Paul calls himself an apostle 20 of the 22 times it's mentioned. The only other time was 2 Peter (not written by Peter) and by Luke, Paul's travelling companion.
... Paul calls himself a... So what?
1 Peter 1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
Peter calling himself an apostle. so do we throw out 1st Peter too? Also, Just because Luke was Pauls traveling companion doesn't mean that we discredit Luke. Lets take a look now, He's gotten rid of Paul, 2nd Peter, Acts, First Peter, and now the Gospel of Luke. Do you not see how flawed this guys reasoning is when he leans on his own understanding.
10. Paul didn't obey the Messiah's Matthew teachings.Best cites Acts 23 for justification of the text
2 The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” 4 But the bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” 5 And Paul said, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’What we actually see here is a sin and then repentance for a sin and an affirmation of Torah - Exodus 22:28 You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people.
So "Best" says that we cannot trust Paul because Paul doesn't affirm scripture, and here he is affirming scripture. He says we can't trust Acts, but is using Acts. This is lazy and inconsistent. Remember when Peter denied Yeshua and swore that he didn't know Him, but was later restored to ministry? We should NOT follow 'Best"'s example and build a doctrine discrediting Peter based off of a stumbling of Peter.
Galatians 1:13 is quoted.
For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy itSomeone detailing credentials of a subject to affirm that they know the intricacies that they're speaking on in order to refute it, is not the same as boasting. Paul does say boasting to make a point in 2 cor. 11
I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then tolerate me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. 17 In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. 18 Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 19 You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20 In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. 21 To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28 Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.Paul is illustrating that the same type of situation that happened with Yeshua and the Disciples.
12. Paul tried to discredit Peter and shared his grievance with him openly in a letter. (Matthew 18 not followed)He didn't discredit Peter, He addressed a public issue. Look at Matthew 23 where Yeshua does the EXACT SAME THING
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples..
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
13. Paul doesn't turn the other cheek, but curses his oppressors.He retracted the curse. Frankly, going from Hebrew mafia pre-conversion to cursing and then retracting a curse after being socked in the jaw... that's remarkable proof of his Salvation and conversion.
14. Paul had his very own Gospel which he called "my gospel."According to his Gospel. the glad tidings of salvation through Christ
15. Paul claims he didn't benefit at all from the other disciples' wisdom.Where did he allegedly claim this? I could say that Justin Best claims that there's nothing wrong with dressing like a woman, but unless he wrote it somewhere or said it in front of witnesses, it would just be slander or a made up interpretation.
16. Paul claims that he is the one who laid the foundation that others build on.1 Corinthians 3:10 is the text used to justify this:
Paul is stating the same thing that is said in John 4
17. Paul calls himself a "father," contrary to Messiah's teachings.Wilbers point cites Heggs study on this and it was beyond me so I'll cite Wilber citing Hegg to refute "Best", Lol
18. Paul was incapable of casting out HIS demon and was the only apostle with this issue.Do we believe that Acts 16 is true?
19. Paul lied to the Sanhedrin when confronted with allegations of teaching against the Law and circumcision.
No, He didn't.
20. Paul repeatedly tries to assure people that he's not lying.So does Yeshua in John 5 and everywhere He says the phrase "Truely, Truely"
So by this reasoning, we have to discard the book of John.
Wilbur drives the point in his refutation of "Best"
21. Paul tells his followers to imitate HIM, not the Messiah.No, He doesn't. He says to imitate him AS he imitates Messiah. Imagine your boss showing you exactly how he wants something done and then your co-worker comes in after your boss has left. You show them how to do exactly what was asked, exactly how your boss wants it. you say something like "do exactly what I'm doing here". They're following your boss's instructions, not yours.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.Justin Best shows his bias saying that Paul is saying something that's not because Paul affirms in the very next verse
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.What does this mean? In the same chapter a few verses up Paul writes:
I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.
Paul is stating the same thing that is said in John 4
For in this case the saying is true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ 38 I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labor.”
17. Paul calls himself a "father," contrary to Messiah's teachings.Wilbers point cites Heggs study on this and it was beyond me so I'll cite Wilber citing Hegg to refute "Best", Lol
This was not how Paul used the term in 1 Corinthians 4:15. According to Hegg:
Paul is arguing for his own acceptance among the followers of Yeshua at Corinth and that they should not "exceed what is written" (v. 6) but should honor his own admonition that the Scriptures formed the ultimate authority for their faith and practice. When he is using the term "father" here, he is referring to himself as the one who brought the Gospel to them and thus the one through whose message they gained "sonship" in the Messiah. (Ibid.)
18. Paul was incapable of casting out HIS demon and was the only apostle with this issue.Do we believe that Acts 16 is true?
It happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling. 17 Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, “These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.” 18 She continued doing this for many days. But Paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out at that very moment.If we believe that Acts 16 is true then we affirm that Paul is a bondservant of the Most High God. If we take this account of him casting out a demon by the authority of Christ as accurate, then the objection 18 is irrelevant. Paul is a bondservant of the Most High God and he proclaims the way of salvation, and he does cast out demons, therefore half ot the objections on this are refuted. Wilbur also directs to Matthew 17:19 to show that the disciples also had issues with casting out demons and that is not limited to Paul.
No, He didn't.
20. Paul repeatedly tries to assure people that he's not lying.So does Yeshua in John 5 and everywhere He says the phrase "Truely, Truely"
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Two Resurrections
25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
So by this reasoning, we have to discard the book of John.
Wilbur drives the point in his refutation of "Best"
Justin kept trying to reassure us that he wasn't rejecting the Messiah or the entirety of the New Testament based on his views of Paul. Why did Justin feel the need to reassure us of this repeatedly throughout his video? According to his own logic, Justin must be untrustworthy!
21. Paul tells his followers to imitate HIM, not the Messiah.No, He doesn't. He says to imitate him AS he imitates Messiah. Imagine your boss showing you exactly how he wants something done and then your co-worker comes in after your boss has left. You show them how to do exactly what was asked, exactly how your boss wants it. you say something like "do exactly what I'm doing here". They're following your boss's instructions, not yours.
22. Paul is not eloquent, but confusing. Yahuah is not the author of confusion.This point is such garbage in the way they're using it that it can be applied to God Himself.
I again direct you back to 2 Peter 3
23. Paul contradicts himself repeatedly.Source???
He doesn't tho.
24. Paul taught to follow your conscience, not the law.No... He doesn't. What is the source of this claim? And further more, how many of these points are the same point repeated over and over or are opinions pretending to be points???
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.Peter not understanding a vision from God Himself does not mean that God is authoring confusion. Paul writing things which some do not understand does not mean that Paul is authoring confusion.
17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon’s house, appeared at the gate;
I again direct you back to 2 Peter 3
, 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.
23. Paul contradicts himself repeatedly.Source???
He doesn't tho.
24. Paul taught to follow your conscience, not the law.No... He doesn't. What is the source of this claim? And further more, how many of these points are the same point repeated over and over or are opinions pretending to be points???
25. Paul says the law justifies, then says it doesn't in the next chapter. (Romans 2-3)The claim is that Romans 2:13 contradicts Romans 3:20,
26. Paul added to and took away from the WORD in stereotypical Pharisee fashion.This point is very strange to acert in an argument for adding and taking away from the Word. Again, I can say that Justin says its ok to wear ladies undies, but that by no means makes it true. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Paul did not add or take away from the Word. "Best" mentions Romans 14 and takes this to mean that Paul is talking about picking or not picking the Sabbath, when in reality, Romans 14 is about eating and not eating= Fasting. "Best" applies a false meaning to the chapter and then criticises Paul as contradicting scripture for his interpretation. Its like saying, "Paul is saying something contrary to scripture, because I say he is, and because I say he is, Paul is therefore saying something contrary to scripture."
27. Paul caused confusion, and 50,000 "Christian" denominations.Again, Peter was confused by God. Does that mean that God is wrong? Does that mean that we remove God from all denominations? That's silly and really really bad theology.
28. Paul caused lawlessness among so many it is added to him until this day.Churchill had a quote that says A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. If Paul professes truth and someone misreads or mishears or misapplies it, who is at fault, the one that shared truth or the one that distorts it.
Look at the adversary. If we apply "Bests" logic, Its God's fault when the adversary twists scripture.
Furthermore Acts 6
What shall we do with this? If we apply "Best"'s Logic, we must throw out the Messiah because people have believed the words of false witnesses.
29. Paul doesn't pass the Prophet test of Deuteronomy 13.Nowhere does Paul say let us worship other gods. Nowhere does Paul say that we should disregard God's commands or God's Law. This is the very thing that Peter states was NOT happening. This is the very thing that Paul went and did a vow and performed sacrifices to show he was NOT doing. "Best" is again starting with a conclusion and working backwards.
30. Paul's doctrines cannot be confirmed by 2-3 witnesses.
31. James 3 seems to be directly teaching against Paul personally.This interpretation is not in line with James affirming Paul in Acts 21
33. 1 John chapter 2 and 3 seem to warn against Paul as a false teacher.
As just noted and noted from point one, "Bests" judgment should not be trusted. He stated that it seems like Paul copied Smith and Mohamud even though they weren't even born until long after Paul lived and died. This is such bad reasoning that one might assume that it is a deliberate misleading.
34. Paul taught that Messiah didn't come in the flesh, but in the "likeness" of flesh, a doctrine specifically stated to be an "antichrist" doctrine according to 1 John 4. "The likeness of men" and "appearance as a man" are how Paul describes the Messiah.Just as in point 26, "Best" makes a straw man argument.
35. Paul testifies he was kicked out of the church of Asia (Ephesus,) Ephesus was then rewarded in the Book of Revelation for kicking out a "false apostle."I'll again defer to Wilbur as he cites another author:
36. Paul taught the eating of food sacrificed to idols, as act CONDEMNED in the Book of Revelation chapter 2.No, He didn't. This is again making a false claim and then calling Paul false for the false claim. 119 does a breakdown.
37. Paul says it's better to not get married like him. The Torah says otherwise. "It is not good for man to be alone."
Yeah, uh, about that...
The disciples and the Messiah both stated what Paul has echoed, so to throw out Paul without the words of the Disciples and Messiah show the logical deficiency and or bias.
38. Paul's teaching of abstinence above all led to sexual immorality among church leaders for centuries, and it still continues.By the same logic people could attribute Yeshua making all FOOD clean in Mark 7 as contributory to all sorts of bad doctrine when Yeshua wasn't making all unclean animals food but merely deeming all that is defined as food, is clean. Furthermore, I saw a documentary were a haitian woman read that Word of God is our "Daily bread" and she would make soup, rip out pages of the bible and put it in the broth and feed it to her kids. Do we attribute that false action to Yeshua?
39. Paul says he "being crafty, caught you with guile."The way that "Best" is trying to portray that makes no sense in the surrounding context. It does sound like Paul is refuting an accusation and sarcastically refers to an accusation against him. Like if someone accused him of being greedy, and he said "Oh yeah, I'm really greedy, so greedy that when I showed up I didn't let you pay for anything and didn't take anything from you and I went out of my way to give... I'm sooooo greedy oooooooh *jazz hands*"
40. Paul claims that it's ok to lie as long as it leads people to "Christ." (Romans 3:7)No. Just NO! This is dishonest. It's like quoting half a verse! Paul is illustrating that sin testifies the need for God and states that we shouldn't sin. He's using a style of argument that is very hebraic. "What should we say, should we say we should continue in sin so that grace may abound? MAY IT NEVER BE" "Best" is selectively taking partial ideas that Paul is refuting and saying that Paul is saying something that he isn't.
41. Paul says to be all things to all people, a subtle doctrine of deceit.Wilber cites Hegg and Hegg is a power house. I'll cited Wilber Citing Hegg too.
42. There are only 12 foundations on New Jerusalem, with the 12 disciples' names written on them. Paul makes 13.This is honestly like saying "Ford makes a 12 person van, therefore that 13th person doesn't exist" this has nothing to do with authorship or Paul being commissioned. 12 gates in Jerusalem, Paul is of Benjamin and will go through the Benjamin gate.
43. There are only 12 gates leading into New Jerusalem, where's Paul's?Paul has to go in through the kitchen.
That's a joke, don't make a doctrine out of it. The gates are tribal affiliation, He's of Benjamin... so...between Manasseh and Gad.
44. Paul quotes writings of Euripedes (406 B.C.) and claims it to be the words of the Messiah ("kick against the pricks").So. Yeshua used something personal to bring about conviction to Paul. If the Spirit brought something to my attention using something in my day to day life, I could still say that the Lord spoke to me saying X,Y,Z.
45. Paul taught popular doctrines of stoicism instead of the law (deny the flesh).Paul... taught that we... should deny flesh... Like Yeshua literally said in Matthew 16
46. Paul has no witnesses to his conversion.This is the same point that has been refuted a few times here just reworded to try and pad the bill to a nice "50 point". Again, Acts 9
47. The early Ebionite and Nazarene Churches utterly rejected Paul as a false apostle.The mormon church denies caffeine, Who gives a crap. Islam denies Yeshua as Messiah. What's that got to do with anything. Atheists utterly reject God, so, applying "Best"'s "logic" we must now disqualify God due to the authority of a heretical church.
48. The other disciples did not believe Paul was a disciple in Acts 9.They sure believed he was a disciple when they sent men with him and let him stand up and speak testifying of the works of God in Acts 15. This point is a non-point
49. The true Apostles did not defend Paul when he was imprisoned and questioned.Wilber put it better than I can:
50. Paul's conversion story is almost identical to that of Pentheus, King of Thebes from the play titled Bacche, written 400 years earlier. Dionysus (instead of "Jesus") is confronting his persecutor and states "you disregard my words of warning…and kick against the pricks, a man defying god."
Similar does not mean same. This is bad logic
"Here in America, we had a president named George Bush. He had gray hair. He was an old white guy that wore suits. He had a wife. He ordered combat in Iraq." Which one am I referring to, H or W? If one makes the assumption that similar means same, then they're going to make all kinds of bad doctrine
If we apply "Best"'s reasoning and conclusion, then that means that Issac didn't marry, that he never had the same situation. That we should disregard Gen 26 because it is a rehashing of the Abraham narrative. This is absurd.People say that the flood of Noah is just the story of Gilgamesh. People say that Samson was just Hercules. We don't rip out Genesis. We don't rip out Judges.
Instead, we should rip out the pride that masquerades as scholarship and dictates that our understanding and reasoning is the only, ultimate understanding and that we alone have a monopoly on truth.
Romans 2:13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
Romans 3:30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.Paul is saying that same thing that James does, do we throw out James also?
James 2Those of faith will result in works, and those of only works without faith will not be saved. That is not a contradiction at all.
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
26. Paul added to and took away from the WORD in stereotypical Pharisee fashion.This point is very strange to acert in an argument for adding and taking away from the Word. Again, I can say that Justin says its ok to wear ladies undies, but that by no means makes it true. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Paul did not add or take away from the Word. "Best" mentions Romans 14 and takes this to mean that Paul is talking about picking or not picking the Sabbath, when in reality, Romans 14 is about eating and not eating= Fasting. "Best" applies a false meaning to the chapter and then criticises Paul as contradicting scripture for his interpretation. Its like saying, "Paul is saying something contrary to scripture, because I say he is, and because I say he is, Paul is therefore saying something contrary to scripture."
27. Paul caused confusion, and 50,000 "Christian" denominations.Again, Peter was confused by God. Does that mean that God is wrong? Does that mean that we remove God from all denominations? That's silly and really really bad theology.
28. Paul caused lawlessness among so many it is added to him until this day.Churchill had a quote that says A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. If Paul professes truth and someone misreads or mishears or misapplies it, who is at fault, the one that shared truth or the one that distorts it.
Look at the adversary. If we apply "Bests" logic, Its God's fault when the adversary twists scripture.
Furthermore Acts 6
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.
What shall we do with this? If we apply "Best"'s Logic, we must throw out the Messiah because people have believed the words of false witnesses.
29. Paul doesn't pass the Prophet test of Deuteronomy 13.Nowhere does Paul say let us worship other gods. Nowhere does Paul say that we should disregard God's commands or God's Law. This is the very thing that Peter states was NOT happening. This is the very thing that Paul went and did a vow and performed sacrifices to show he was NOT doing. "Best" is again starting with a conclusion and working backwards.
30. Paul's doctrines cannot be confirmed by 2-3 witnesses.
Acts 15
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they sent this letter by them,
“The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.
24 “Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Peter, Barnabas, Silas, Judas called Barsabbas. All of these are in affirmation of the same doctrine.
31. James 3 seems to be directly teaching against Paul personally.This interpretation is not in line with James affirming Paul in Acts 21
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... 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.
32. Paul says that "works" are useless for salvation, James (one of the 12) says the opposite.Are we gonna brush right past how point 25 is totally related to this? Either He's being dishonest or ignorant in this and point 25. If "Best" believes that works are for salvation he is absolutely mistaken. Works are the fruit of salvation, not the seed. That is an important distinction. If God says "I will save you if you do this once I do" that does not mean "Do this, then I'll save you"
33. 1 John chapter 2 and 3 seem to warn against Paul as a false teacher.
As just noted and noted from point one, "Bests" judgment should not be trusted. He stated that it seems like Paul copied Smith and Mohamud even though they weren't even born until long after Paul lived and died. This is such bad reasoning that one might assume that it is a deliberate misleading.
34. Paul taught that Messiah didn't come in the flesh, but in the "likeness" of flesh, a doctrine specifically stated to be an "antichrist" doctrine according to 1 John 4. "The likeness of men" and "appearance as a man" are how Paul describes the Messiah.Just as in point 26, "Best" makes a straw man argument.
35. Paul testifies he was kicked out of the church of Asia (Ephesus,) Ephesus was then rewarded in the Book of Revelation for kicking out a "false apostle."I'll again defer to Wilbur as he cites another author:
The problem with Justin's assertion is that Paul ministered to believers in Ephesus (ever read Ephesians?). There are countless references in Acts of Paul ministering in Ephesus (Acts 18-19). Regarding 1 Timothy 1:15 in which Paul says that "all who are in Asia turned away from me," Craig Keener notes:
In context, "all" excludes at least the household of 1:16-18; in accordance with the flexibility of common language in antiquity, it means "most." Although many Jewish teachers predicted widespread apostasy for the end time or even felt that it characterized their own generation, they lamented it. This is hardly the sort of detail a later pseudepigrapher writing in Paul's name would have made up about the end of his ministry. (Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary)
36. Paul taught the eating of food sacrificed to idols, as act CONDEMNED in the Book of Revelation chapter 2.No, He didn't. This is again making a false claim and then calling Paul false for the false claim. 119 does a breakdown.
37. Paul says it's better to not get married like him. The Torah says otherwise. "It is not good for man to be alone."
Yeah, uh, about that...
Matthew 19:10-12
The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
The disciples and the Messiah both stated what Paul has echoed, so to throw out Paul without the words of the Disciples and Messiah show the logical deficiency and or bias.
38. Paul's teaching of abstinence above all led to sexual immorality among church leaders for centuries, and it still continues.By the same logic people could attribute Yeshua making all FOOD clean in Mark 7 as contributory to all sorts of bad doctrine when Yeshua wasn't making all unclean animals food but merely deeming all that is defined as food, is clean. Furthermore, I saw a documentary were a haitian woman read that Word of God is our "Daily bread" and she would make soup, rip out pages of the bible and put it in the broth and feed it to her kids. Do we attribute that false action to Yeshua?
39. Paul says he "being crafty, caught you with guile."The way that "Best" is trying to portray that makes no sense in the surrounding context. It does sound like Paul is refuting an accusation and sarcastically refers to an accusation against him. Like if someone accused him of being greedy, and he said "Oh yeah, I'm really greedy, so greedy that when I showed up I didn't let you pay for anything and didn't take anything from you and I went out of my way to give... I'm sooooo greedy oooooooh *jazz hands*"
40. Paul claims that it's ok to lie as long as it leads people to "Christ." (Romans 3:7)No. Just NO! This is dishonest. It's like quoting half a verse! Paul is illustrating that sin testifies the need for God and states that we shouldn't sin. He's using a style of argument that is very hebraic. "What should we say, should we say we should continue in sin so that grace may abound? MAY IT NEVER BE" "Best" is selectively taking partial ideas that Paul is refuting and saying that Paul is saying something that he isn't.
41. Paul says to be all things to all people, a subtle doctrine of deceit.Wilber cites Hegg and Hegg is a power house. I'll cited Wilber Citing Hegg too.
42. There are only 12 foundations on New Jerusalem, with the 12 disciples' names written on them. Paul makes 13.This is honestly like saying "Ford makes a 12 person van, therefore that 13th person doesn't exist" this has nothing to do with authorship or Paul being commissioned. 12 gates in Jerusalem, Paul is of Benjamin and will go through the Benjamin gate.
43. There are only 12 gates leading into New Jerusalem, where's Paul's?Paul has to go in through the kitchen.
That's a joke, don't make a doctrine out of it. The gates are tribal affiliation, He's of Benjamin... so...between Manasseh and Gad.
44. Paul quotes writings of Euripedes (406 B.C.) and claims it to be the words of the Messiah ("kick against the pricks").So. Yeshua used something personal to bring about conviction to Paul. If the Spirit brought something to my attention using something in my day to day life, I could still say that the Lord spoke to me saying X,Y,Z.
45. Paul taught popular doctrines of stoicism instead of the law (deny the flesh).Paul... taught that we... should deny flesh... Like Yeshua literally said in Matthew 16
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.C'mon now... this is a given.
46. Paul has no witnesses to his conversion.This is the same point that has been refuted a few times here just reworded to try and pad the bill to a nice "50 point". Again, Acts 9
Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake
47. The early Ebionite and Nazarene Churches utterly rejected Paul as a false apostle.The mormon church denies caffeine, Who gives a crap. Islam denies Yeshua as Messiah. What's that got to do with anything. Atheists utterly reject God, so, applying "Best"'s "logic" we must now disqualify God due to the authority of a heretical church.
48. The other disciples did not believe Paul was a disciple in Acts 9.They sure believed he was a disciple when they sent men with him and let him stand up and speak testifying of the works of God in Acts 15. This point is a non-point
49. The true Apostles did not defend Paul when he was imprisoned and questioned.Wilber put it better than I can:
They didn't defend Yeshua during His sentencing and crucifixion, either. So, according to Justin's logic, that must mean that Yeshua is a false Messiah
50. Paul's conversion story is almost identical to that of Pentheus, King of Thebes from the play titled Bacche, written 400 years earlier. Dionysus (instead of "Jesus") is confronting his persecutor and states "you disregard my words of warning…and kick against the pricks, a man defying god."
Similar does not mean same. This is bad logic
"Here in America, we had a president named George Bush. He had gray hair. He was an old white guy that wore suits. He had a wife. He ordered combat in Iraq." Which one am I referring to, H or W? If one makes the assumption that similar means same, then they're going to make all kinds of bad doctrine
Gen 10 :12
Now there was a famine in the land; so Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land. 11 It came about when he came near to Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, “See now, I know that you are a beautiful woman; 12 and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Please say that you are my sister so that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may live on account of you.”
Gen 26
When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, “She is my sister,” for he was afraid to say, “my wife,” thinking, “the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful.”
If we apply "Best"'s reasoning and conclusion, then that means that Issac didn't marry, that he never had the same situation. That we should disregard Gen 26 because it is a rehashing of the Abraham narrative. This is absurd.People say that the flood of Noah is just the story of Gilgamesh. People say that Samson was just Hercules. We don't rip out Genesis. We don't rip out Judges.
Instead, we should rip out the pride that masquerades as scholarship and dictates that our understanding and reasoning is the only, ultimate understanding and that we alone have a monopoly on truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment