Defense of Paul 3- "Paulabellum "

In case you were not some how aware that I have been plastering rebukes of Justin Best of Christian Truthers statement that Paul should be removed from the Bible, I have been . That first refute and video can be found here  and the second can be found here .  Even though others and myself have rend Justin's very flawed, bad arguments for what they are, He's still dropping videos that are leading people astray.

This Post will be everything that I see scripturally wrong with Justin's latest video which can be found here 

Alright, Justin starts by pointing to Revelation 12: 11 to build a foundation for the false message that he has been espousing.

They triumphed over him
    by the blood of the Lamb
    and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
    as to shrink from death.

Justin states that he hasn't been sharing the testimony as to what he attributes to Yah in order to mutilate the Word of God.  Justin tries to equate the vision that he has to be equal to Peters vision regarding going to the gentiles. He asserts that his vision is true, and keeps saying that it is true, which  according to his really bad logic in his first video, point 20, means he's not telling the truth

"20. Paul repeatedly tries to assure people that he's not lying"

Justin says that he originally loved Paul's writings and letters, but shifted to a place of questioning and sharing that with friends and family. I want to affirm that at this point, there is nothing wrong with that. Questions are good. If it weren't for questions, most of us wouldn't believe in the fullness of the Bible, or, the Bible at all. Justin has crossed no lines in questioning and looking for answers to questions. Justin says that the response he received was to study Paul from a torah perspective, and this is again a solid answer. By his own admission, Justin says that he took the advice and was even able to reconcile certain things that Paul says that Justin previously took objection. He mentions that he had once gone through the Pauline paradox series by 119 Ministries but I believe that this is similar to what is written about in James 1

 22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. 25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.

Justin looks at the truth, and then forgets what it says. He says that he went through the Pauline Paradox series- which gives a breakdown on the point regarding Meat Sacrificed to Idols, but either forgets the explanation or deliberately abandons it.Justin says that after a year the issue came back up within him and he encountered contradictory scriptures- then self edits to say contradictory statements. We should remember that if we see contradiction in the scriptures, the culprit is more often than not, our understanding and not the scriptures themselves.

Justin states a DREAM where he has had with a cartoon map and of  Peter and a cartoon of Paul and Peter was sitting on a throne, and Paul knocked him off of his throne  knocking him off of the map. In this dream Justin says "that doesn't make any sense". Justin says that when he woke up he KNEW that this was a dream that confirmed his position.
Lets take a look at some important verse regarding this. Jeremiah 29

 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 ‘Build houses and live in them; and plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease. 7 Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.’ 8 For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, ‘Do not let your prophets who are in your midst and your diviners deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams which they dream. 9 For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them,’ declares the Lord.

This is a passage that if you believe that we are in the diaspora, is pertaining to us and is warning us to not be deceived by people, like Justin, who are leading people astray, like justin, according to dreams in which they say God gave them, just like Justin.  Look at Jeremiah 23

I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy falsely in My name, saying, ‘I had a dream, I had a dream!’ 26 How long? Is there anything in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy falsehood, even these prophets of the deception of their own heart, 27 who intend to make My people forget My name by their dreams which they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot My name because of Baal?The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth.

Justin is doing this very thing by crediting a dream as confirmation of his rejection of SCRIPTURE.
Is it not possible that God was testing his heart to see if he'd obey the commands of God? That happens repeatedly in scripture. Could his dream mean that he's making caricatures out of the Word of God and in rejecting Paul, Justin is falling from his secure position and will be wiped off the map?
Could his dream be the result of eating pizza before bed? It could be any of these things, or none of these things. What it doesn't make the case for, is Divine inspiration.It fails to meet that burden. Remember in Justin's first point when he tried to make the case that Joseph Smiths story was like Paul's even though Paul lived like 1800 years prior? We can do the same thing with Justin's dream and Joseph smith

According to the account Smith told in 1838, he went to the woods to pray about which church to join but fell into the grip of an evil power that nearly overcame him. At the last moment, he was rescued by two shining "Personages" (implied to be God the Father and Jesus) who hovered above him. One of the beings told Smith not to join any existing churches because all taught incorrect doctrines.

Two biblical figures, just like in Justin's dream, regarding the church, just like Justins dream. Does anyone not see that this is how dangerous cults are formed? Let me tell you, sometimes if you binge watch a show, certain elements can show up in your dream. If you spend a lot of time reading a specific story, elements can show up in your subconscious. Last night I had a dream that involved a friend of mine that I had to substantially scale communication back from because the situation called for it. To avoid falling into sin I had to cut back. I started this post yesterday and wrote this section about how dreams can be a test. I had a dream about this friend and when I woke up I had the strong desire to reach out to them and tell them about it. Except there is a problem with that, God has already shown me that this is something that shouldn't happen. I woke up and I knew that it was a test. Instead I reached out to some brothers instead of reconnecting with my friend.
Here are examples of God testing the hearts of people to see if they will obey Him, or do what seems right in their own way , I'll cite the verses but for length I won't quote them all

Deuteronomy 8:2, Judges 2:22, Judges 3:1, Judges 3:4, 2 Chronicles 32:31

Back to Justin who again reiterates the false claim that Paul usurped the seat of authority from Peter over the gentiles. Lets take a step back and look at this for a minute... follow me here

Romans 4:16
For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

Romans 10:12
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him

Romans 11:13-17
 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree

 Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household

Ephesians 3:6
to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel

Note that Paul reiterates the same thing that Leviticus, and Numbers, and Deuteronomy say about their being the same law, the same body, the same people being united? Justin keeps manufacturing a division between Paul and Peter and saying Peter is for gentiles not Paul, but scriptures state again and again and again that there is to be ONE body, that in Messiah you ARE descendants of Abraham. That once you come into the faith you were FORMERLY GENTILES BUT ARE NOW PART OF ISRAEL. This renders Justin's argument worthless at its core because he is denying this at its base.

Justin continues and states that as he was approaching unleavened bread he was seeing all these scriptures that were"not beneficial to Torah in Messiah". That is a pretty big claim. He's saying that scriptures were coming to him and leading him to take Paul out of the Bible in practicality. Lets ask ourselves, are there examples of the Word of God being used to deceive and lead people away?

Out of Luke 4
And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; 10 for it is written,
‘He will command His angels concerning You to guard You,’ ( Psalms 91:11)
11 and,
‘On their hands they will bear You up,
So that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’”( Psalms 91:12)
12 And Jesus answered and said to him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

The Adversary is citing the Word of God to advocate action. He's just citing it incorrectly as a temptation to Yeshua!!! I believe that is the very case of what happened with Justin, but sadly, Justin succumbed to the temptation and has discarded the Word of God in favor of his OWN understanding.
Justin even says that he had this FEELING that he had to share this, Had To Share This,  HAD TO SHARE THIS. This point is also ironic that Justin accuses Paul of sharing "his own gospel" but that is what Justin is doing with spreading his doctrine advocating the abandonment of Paul.  He states that unleavened bread was the time in which he had to share this because he feels that Paul's writings have been leavened. We've already gone though in the previous posts how that isn't the case but its a matter of a faulty understanding and not the writings of Paul themselves.
Then Justin shares something sadly revealing, a popular teacher friend that struggle with the teachings of Paul abandoned faith, and Justin attributes this to the Scriptures themselves rather than the breakdown in logic used.Justin cites that his beta fish named paul died as proof that we should abandon scriptural integrity.This is not a good argument. 1 Tim 4

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Justin goes back to the analogy that Paul is of Benjamin, the blessing of Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, therefore Paul is the wolf warned against. Here's a flaw in what he's doing there. He makes a big production about Peter being the foundation in which He builds His church right... He over emphasizes this  point. Looking at the text in Matt 16 we see it:

 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 

Right AFTER Peter has this big moment, feeling good rocking the very spiritual "got the question right about the Messiah" vibes, he over does it and the in the same chapter we see this

 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” 23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

If we follow Justin's example and abandoned reason and just look for what we want to look for or assume is true, then Peter can't have the church be upon him because he's satan. Furthermore Justin's logic also applied here in making such a huge deal about Paul rebuking Peter for hypocrisy concerning only eating with the Jews, Justin applies a MAJOR double standard here because Peter tried rebuking YESHUA!!!
Justin goes on to mention the two types of trees with good fruit and bad fruit, and seeks out the negative framework to apply only to his interpretation of Paul. Is bad fruit rebuking Yeshua? Is bad fruit denying Him 3 times as scripture records? Why does Justin stay silent in his reasoning on Peter and so loud in applying it to Paul unless it is his own bias that he's seeking to confirm.
For clarity's sake, I do not think Peter is satan nor Paul a heretic, I have used that for illustrative purposes.

Justin... I'm sorry I'm still trying to compose myself here... Justin states that while he was in the process of twisting Yeshua's warning... Justin's wife bid him to come look outside... and there was a cloud.. shaped like a wolf... and ... because Justin thinks that a cloud... looks like a wolf... then ... Paul should be removed from the the New Testament. At this point I feel myself wondering if Justin smokes weed. Wondering if Justin was smoking weed. Because this is the logic of someone who smokes weed... That their doctrine is being confirmed by cloud shapes and a dead beta fish that only lives for about 3 years dying after about 3 years. I'm a little grieved that I even have to write a post refuting this.  Having a lion king moment does not mean that you rip out scripture.
Another interpretation of the wolf in the clouds (though I do not believe it is God) could be God trying to warn Justin that HE is becoming a wolf, doing violence to the word of God and by proxy, the church. Justin states that the timing of him looking for justification of rejecting Paul as a wolf and seeing  a cloud outside at the same time that looks like a wolf, is impossible. That claim is false.
Justin elaborates that his wife said that the cloud looked like it had the face of a man like Yah whatever Yah looks like, then an angry face and then a wolf. Could it be that that it was the Face of Yah, and while Justin was persecuting Paul Yah became angry, and warns Justin that he is becoming a wolf in sheep's clothing? I know that Justin knows 1 John 4:1 because he uses it to try and deny Paul

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 

Furthermore 2 thes 2 says this

 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

I pray repentance for Justin and all who follow him. I know that some of my tone in these writings have been harsh, but they need to be based on the severity of the Sin being perpetuated. Advocating apostasy to part of the Scriptures is not something to be taken lightly over tea. This is severe.

Just sets up his next point that he went live with his first part of his objections to Paul and that him going live was unbeknownst to Adam, and while he was live Adam had his own dream.  Justin is about to go into Adams dream to bolster his claim but he's already set up a false premise. The stage he tries to set is that since Adam didn't know about Justin going live, and then Adam had a dream, this confirms independently what Justin was saying. Except, Justin has been saying all along that he's been texting Adam all of his other "confirmations" and having discussions with Adam about all of this already.
Adams dream is that he was in a cave and there were soldiers to the left and the right in a firefight with each other, and then someone came into the cave with their hands up saying "don't shoot".  He states that in the dream the man that came in and was yelling "don't shoot" was Justin. He states that justin's appearance was covered in dirt and blood and he had just come in from behind enemy lines, but it was somewhat humorous because Justin's collar was popped and the dream ended.
Justin relays that Adam thought that the dream meant that Justin is not the enemy but was just going through some stuff for a "good cause"
Another take could be that we are in  Spiritual war, and that Justin is not where he should be, instead he's just come in from the enemies side, and his collar is popped like one puffed up and flaunting, its is a symbol of preppy proudness. None of this is confirmation that we should abandon Paul.
Justin states that the popped collar in military terms hides your rank. This could mean that Justin's "rank" as a teacher is to be stripped for advocating heresy. It could be nothing. There is nothing in Adams dream that relates to rejecting Paul one way or another.

Justin mentioned a friend of a friend who had a dream. She had a dream that she was in a field  and her and her husband were planning a garden. Then she realised that there was another field. And that Justin and his wife were in another field looking where to plant. She looks and sees that Justin is talking to her husband and Justin is panicked about rushing the seeds into the ground, NOW. She was concerned but agreed, and noticed another couple who had a field. She looks again and sees her husband and another couple planting immediately. They all sow seed to prepare for planting and that snakes like vipers sprang up from the ground and tried to bite their faces. The dream ends there and she asks what it means. Justin informs us that the couple that had the dream is the first couple that they shared their views on abandoning the integrity of scripture, and the second couple was the second one they shared this doctrine of apostasy to the fullness of God's Word.

A possible accounting of this dream is that Justin is planting what is false and spreading tares among the wheat, and in doing so, invites judgement as serpents are often representative of judgement. The parable of the tares is fitting here, Lets look at Matthew 13 and look at the imagery

 “Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. 20 The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 23 And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”
24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves *said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he *said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

If we look at the symbolism from this parable it fits more in line with Justins situation. Justin is having issues with THE WORD, He is trying to sow this doctrine in the soil but what spouts up is not
wheat, its Serpents. Vipers. If we use the word of God the same way Justin is using the word of God, then this is a rebuke, and it honestly should be

Matthew 23:33
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

Serpents in scripture have shown judgement

Numbers 21
 The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and you; intercede with the Lord, that He may remove the serpents from us.” And Moses interceded for the people.

 Look at Jeremiah 8

“How can you say, ‘We are wise,
And the law of the Lord is with us’?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
Has made it into a lie.
9 “The wise men are put to shame,
They are dismayed and caught;
Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord,
And what kind of wisdom do they have?
10 “Therefore I will give their wives to others,
Their fields to new owners;
Because from the least even to the greatest
Everyone is greedy for gain;
From the prophet even to the priest
Everyone practices deceit.
11 “They heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially,
Saying, ‘Peace, peace,’
But there is no peace.
12 “Were they ashamed because of the abomination they had done?
They certainly were not ashamed,
And they did not know how to blush;
Therefore they shall fall among those who fall;
At the time of their punishment they shall be brought down,”
Says the Lord.
13 “I will surely snatch them away,” declares the Lord;
“There will be no grapes on the vine
And no figs on the fig tree,
And the leaf will wither;
And what I have given them will pass away.”’”
14 Why are we sitting still?
Assemble yourselves, and let us go into the fortified cities
And let us perish there,
Because the Lord our God has doomed us
And given us poisoned water to drink,
For we have sinned against the Lord.
15 We waited for peace, but no good came;
For a time of healing, but behold, terror!
16 From Dan is heard the snorting of his horses;
At the sound of the neighing of his stallions
The whole land quakes;
For they come and devour the land and its fullness,
The city and its inhabitants.
17 “For behold, I am sending serpents against you,
Adders, for which there is no charm,
And they will bite you,” declares the Lord.

Do you see how using the same elements that he's using regarding Peter and Benjamin are used against him, and overlap with the components in this dream. Lets also not forget the original serpent in the garden that was twisting the word of God.  Just as Justin goes to plant the word, what comes forward is that of the serpent.

Justin recounts that in the third dream the first couple is the first one that he shared his paper on Paul with, and the second couple in the dream is the second that he shared his paper on Paul with. That sounds to me like its on track with the interpretation that the seeds in which he is planting - disregarding Paul- are the seeds that are of the serpent. He says that they all started to fellowship together after sharing this message about Paul.
Even in Justins interpretation of the dream he affirms that the seed is the word, and how his urgency was that he needed to spread THIS word, we have to sow this seed into the ground as soon as possible. He states that trying to plant this seed in the soil, caused the snakes to come out but nobody has gotten bitten. Justin justifies that since no one was bitten then these snakes are not a warning God to repent but rather these snakes are believers that are attacking his position of aborting 2/3rds of the new testament . Jeremiah 23

Thus says the Lord of hosts,

“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you.

They are leading you into futility;

They speak a vision of their own imagination,

Not from the mouth of the Lord.

17 “They keep saying to those who despise Me,

‘The Lord has said, “You will have peace”’;

And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart,

They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’

This is what I am hearing when Justin is saying that the serpent will not bite and that no calamity will befall him. He should repent. Justin states rightly, one of the few points that I agree with him on, is that all of these things were either choreographed by Satan or of by Yah. Satan to steal kill and destroy, or by Yah to test their hearts to see if they will adhere to what is true over what they want to see. Justin has experienced the  "Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon" or "frequency illusion".

 Baader-Meinhof is the phenomenon where one happens upon some obscure piece of information-- often an unfamiliar word or name-- and soon afterwards encounters the same subject again, often repeatedly.

Justin was relying on his own understanding and came to the conclusion that Paul should not be scripture, Then, the Baader-Meinhof/Frequency Illusion kicked in and he was seeing "signs" everywhere. God could have killed his fish as a way to say, "this is what you are doing to my word, Stop" but Justin saw that as confirmation that we should "Kill Paul's writings"
The Frequency illusion is like when you buy a car and then see that care everywhere. They've made a movie about the premise, the Number 23.  I have a friend who sees the number 14 as revelation from God everywhere, and she believes in some crazy weird stuff like werewolves and things. None of this is proof.

Justin lists a list of reasons why he doesn't think that Satan is using this couple because they're humble Torah observant and home-school and goes on to list several good deeds to try and make the claim . This point is very easily refuted by reading the Genesis account and how the Serpent deceived the only people alive while they were still in a state of PERFECTION.

Justin makes the claim that many people outside of torah, of different faiths are now excited about what he's sharing and excited to get into the Word because Justin has removed scripture from it. He states that he's getting SO many messages of people that are interested and that is justification for what he's doing. Except, I know he's seen this passage because he keeps pulling from it

Matt 7
 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves

He puts himself in a catch 22, because on the one hand he's remarking about all these people not of Torah that are saying such good things and praising him...

Luke 6:26 "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

...and on the other hand the rest of the Torah community is chastising him, which, is a point that he uses in his justification in disregarding Paul. Justin notes that half of the Torah community is mad at him and that should be a warning against his false doctrine, but instead of repentance he doubles down. He states that the ends justify the means because he's convincing Christians in regards to the Torah. This is false. This is outright false. Justin is doing the thing he accused Paul of when Paul said he becomes all things to all men. Justin is becoming one who disregards scripture to appeal to those who also want to disregard scriptures. This is asinine.

Justin closes his video with boasting about how he's studied for two years as if that is a significant amount of time to study a matter. Ironically, He's doing the thing that he accuses Paul of except Paul boasted in his own suffering on behalf of the Gospel, but Justin is boasting about having spent two years on the subject. Justin makes the argument that the amount of time hes spent studying means that he's incapable of being deceived. I've been in this walk for about 17 years and I have shown answers to these heresies, but even I know that I am not infallable.  Peter was standing right in front of the MESSIAH and was walking with the SAVIOR and HE was learning directly from GOD in FLESH and HE STILL had to be rebuked. Paul had to sit at the feet of Gamaleil for THREE YEARS before he could even talk to anyone one the subject of the gospel. Who is Justin that he believes that he has become infallible to the word of God and correction? A soft spoken man blinded by his own hubris preaching what is false, assembling disciples after himself. Justin says that the most important thing is to recognize your own sin, and the irony of how he's using that statement is not lost on me. We should endeavor to pray or Justin that God would bring about repentance, but until he does, he should be handed over to destruction.

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

In Defense of Paul

It seems that every month someone goes to a shelf where they keep old refuted heresies and then blow the dust off of them and wave them around for people to fawn over. This month, the topic is at its core, removing most of the New Testament. I've gone rounds with individual people in threads about how discarding Paul as authoritative scripture is a horrible idea, but, here I am again writing it in a post because I didn't save my work in those threads.  Justin Best put out a video BASED ON HIS REASONING of 50 reasons not to quote Paul as scripture. I want to emphasise that just because Mr. Best spent a long time with this faulty line of thinking,  that does not make his reasoning true. Many spend years in false ideologies and study heretical text and the fact that they have invested so much time in a vain pursuit does not make their conclusions any more or less flawed. Most of these objections are made not on their own merits it would seem, but starting with a conclusion and then working backwards to gather points to substantiate the conclusion. This is poor and lazy scholarship.  Now there are 50 points to get through so I "best" get started, heh. ... see what I did there...

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,
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, 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

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.

11. Paul boasted incessantly.
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 it

Someone 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:

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.

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"

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.

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.
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; 

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.
 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,

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 2
 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.

Those of faith will result in works, and those of only works without faith will not be saved. That is not a contradiction at all.

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.