Apostle Paul: Advocate or Adversary 07

In this episode, the speaker discusses objections to the teachings of the Apostle Paul. They address whether Paul taught against the Torah and whether 2 Peter was a forgery. They summarize the previous episodes in the series where they examined various arguments against Paul. The speaker then focuses on the objection that Paul taught against the Torah. They provide evidence from Acts and Paul's writings to show that he actually upheld and taught the Torah. They conclude that Paul was not teaching against the Torah, but that his teachings can be misunderstood due to his use of hyperbole. So in finishing up our series on examining objections to the Apostle Paul, we're going to be looking at whether or not Paul taught against the Torah, and also whether or not 2 Peter is a forgery, whether or not it was actually written by the Apostle Peter himself. All that coming up in this teaching. So this teaching is going to be the final episode in our Attesting Paul series to try and determine if he was an advocate or an adversary, a disciple or a deceiver, whether or not Paul of Tarsus was a true Apostle or not. We've went through many arguments already in this series. Just to recap, in our first episode, we did a basic dossier on Paul of Tarsus, who he was, some things about his life, where he came from. Episode 2, we did an introduction and a foundation for what we're going to be doing in this series. Episode 3, we actually started testing some of the objections that are brought forth against Paul, testing whether there was to be only 12 Apostles, and was Paul rejected by some of the churches that he founded? Episode 4, we tested whether Paul met the criteria for actually being an Apostle, and we also looked into Paul's conversion story as found in the book of Acts. Episode 5, we tested whether or not Paul, being from the tribe of Benjamin, was a good thing or a bad thing or some sort of neutral thing, and how that related to Yeshua's words about a wolf in sheep's clothing. We also tested whether or not Paul taught against the rest of Scripture and what it taught regarding marriage. Episode 6, last episode, we tested whether or not food, or I'm sorry, whether or not Paul taught it was okay to eat food offered to idols, and in what context was he discussing such a subject? And we also tested the part where Yeshua says, call no man father, and then Paul says that he is a father to his churches. So go back, if you've missed any of those, and check out what we tested and the evidence put forth. Very enlightening. We tried to go into as much depth as we could to examine each of these different points. Tonight's episode or teaching is going to be about testing Paul in regards to did Paul teach against the Torah and also was 2 Peter a forgery? And we're going to wrap up with a few miscellaneous points regarding the objections brought forth by the person named Justin Best as well as some others. Now, if you would like the notes that we took for this episode, make sure to go down below and click on the link in the description. That will take you to the article post on our website where you can find the on-demand video that is here on your screen. You'll also be able to find the slides that are being used in this drosh. You'll also be able to find the notes that we took for this subject, which have much, much more information and research than what we've presented to you here during this series. There's also links to external sites where you can get even more information. And all that's located for you conveniently down below in the description. Or you can also go to our website www.godhonesttruth.com and click on the post for this episode. So, the first thing we're going to be examining tonight, the objection that's brought against Paul is that Paul taught against the Torah. The objection from Justin Best goes as this. The Jews are again, and you see this several times, this is a common thread. The Jews are constantly accusing Paul of speaking against the Torah and against Moshe and against circumcision. And yet all of them thought he was teaching against the Torah right to their face. Either he was teaching against the Torah, or he was just a bad teacher and they weren't understanding what he was saying. It seems pretty clear that once again, the Jews believe Paul was teaching against the law of Moses. So, this is the accusation that's brought forth by Justin Best and a lot of those within mainstream churchianity that Paul taught against the Torah. But is that true? What can we find from scripture to enlighten us on this particular point? First thing we're going to look at is the instance in the scriptures where Paul actually proved physically that he taught the Torah. He followed the Torah. Acts chapter 21 verses 19 through 26. And having greeted them, Paul was relating one by one what Elohim had done among the nations through his service. And when they heard it, they praised the Master. And they said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Yehudim there are who have believed and all are ardent for the Torah. But they have been informed about you that you teach all the Yehudim who are among the nations to forsake Moshe, saying not to circumcise the children nor to walk according to the practices. What then is it? They shall certainly hear that you have come. So do this, what we say to you. We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be cleansed with them and pay their expenses so that they shave their heads. And all shall know that what they have been informed about you is not so, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Torah. But concerning the nations who believe, we have written and decided that they should keep themselves from what is offered to idols and blood and what is strangled and whoring. Then Shaul took the men on the next day, and having been cleansed with them, went into the set-apart place to announce the completion of the days of separation until the offering should be presented for each one of them. So a couple points to bring up. Back in the objection that we just read from Justin Beth, he said that Paul was teaching against the Torah and that the Jews he was teaching thought that he was teaching against the Torah. So either he was actually teaching against the Torah or they were misunderstanding him. But was that the case? What we see here from scripture is that many thousands of Jews had come to believe and they were zealous. They were ardent for the Torah, for keeping the Torah and what is taught in that. Amen, right? But it goes on to say that they had been informed about Paul, falsely informed. So it wasn't Paul teaching them anti-Torah stuff. It was outsiders informing them about Paul and misinforming them about Paul. And what they were telling these Jews is that Paul taught against the Torah. That Paul taught them to forsake Moshe. That he taught them to not circumcise the children and not do according to the Torah. That's what they were informed by external sources. Not by Paul. Paul was keeping and teaching the Torah. So in order to prove this to everyone, he went and took a vow, most likely a Nazirite vow, to show that he kept the Torah. So he physically proved that he was keeping and teaching the Torah. But throughout his writings, he also goes on to uphold and teach the Torah. In Romans, Paul teaches that the Torah is binding on a man and a woman. Romans chapter 7 verses 1 through 3. Or do you not know, brothers, for I speak to those knowing the Torah, that the Torah rules over a man as long as he lives? For the married woman has been bound by Torah to the living husband, but if the husband dies, she is released from the Torah concerning her husband. So then, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's. But if her husband dies, she is free from that part of the Torah, so that she is not an adulteress, having become another man's. So here we see a couple points. All going back to the same subject, right? That the Torah rules over a man as long as he lives. Paul is writing this to the church in Rome, long after the death, burial, and resurrection and ascension of Yeshua. So Paul himself did not believe that the Torah had been done away with. He believed that it was still active and ongoing and relevant in a believer's life. And that the Torah rules over a man so long as he lives. He even goes on to apply this to women as well, saying that a married woman has been bound by the Torah to her husband. I ask you, if the Torah had been done away with, why would a woman be bound to her husband by the Torah? It makes no sense. Paul is teaching the Torah. He's teaching the Torah is still applicable in our lives today. Not only this, but he continues throughout his teachings to teach the precepts and things that come from Torah itself. From Torah itself. For example, Ephesians chapter 6, verses 1 through 3. Children, obey your parents in the master, for this is right. Respect your father and mother, which is the first command with promise, in order that it might be well with you, and you might live long on the earth. So he's teaching directly from Torah. That children should obey their parents. Children should honor their parents. Paul is teaching the exact same thing right from Torah. So Paul kept and taught the Torah. Paul himself even states that the Torah is righteous and profitable. What do I mean by that? Look in 2 Timothy chapter 3, verses, I'm sorry, verse 16. All scripture is breathed out by Elohim and profitable for teaching or approved for setting straight for instruction in righteousness. We made this point before, but think back to the time of Paul. If Paul is referencing something as scripture, what is it that Paul is considering to be scripture? It wasn't the A.K.A. New Testament, because that hadn't been canonized. Some parts of it hadn't been written yet. What Paul is referring to as scripture is the Tanakh to include the Torah, and especially the Torah. So when he says that all scripture is breathed out by Elohim and profitable for teaching or approved for setting straight for instruction in righteousness, what he's actually saying is that all Torah is breathed out by Elohim and profitable for teaching for approved for setting straight for instruction in righteousness. That's what they considered scripture at that time. The Tanakh to include the Torah. So no, Paul was not teaching against Torah. The thing where a lot of people get off track is that Paul can sometimes be confusing. Paul uses hyperbole a lot of times. He uses the same word in different contexts a lot of times. And you really have to take what Paul is saying in context in order to understand exactly what it is he is saying. To the point, especially for what we're examining right now, is the word law. In fact, Paul uses the word law in several different contexts and with several different meanings during his writings. He uses the word, just a single word law to mean law of God, law of sin, law of sin and death, law of the spirit of life, law of faith, law of righteousness. And I think 119 ministries even has seven listed here. But that's what you got to understand. That's what some people who go against Paul and who are in mainstream churchianity. That's where they err. They don't understand that they have to take all that Paul writes in context for when he says it. When he says, you're not under the law, which law is he talking about? The law of God, the Torah, or is he talking about the law of sin and death? Context will tell you there which law he is talking about. And for a further, much, much more in-depth study and teaching on this, I would direct you over to the series put out by 119 ministries. They did an excellent job going through and teaching about Paul, what he was all about, understanding Paul, correcting some of the misunderstandings about Paul, including his use of the word law. And again, no, Paul did not teach against the law. Like we said, if you don't understand what Paul is writing in context when he's saying it, then you can misunderstand and completely go off the tracks. Peter even warns us about this in 2 Peter chapter 3, verses 15 through 16. And reckon the patience of our master at deliverance, as also our beloved brother Shaul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all his letters speaking in them concerning these matters, in which some are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the other scriptures. So Peter, the apostle Peter is telling us here that we should be careful because Paul can be hard to understand in some of the things that he is writing. So once again, we need to be careful when Paul says something and take what it is he's saying in context to better understand exactly what point Paul is trying to teach. Now, of course, this verse right here comes from the book of 2 Peter, which is our next point. Justin and others who object to Paul as being an apostle say that 2 Peter is actually a forgery and not by the apostle Peter himself. In fact, let me back up one slide real quick. Here in 2 Peter 3.15-16, Peter references Paul as an apostle, and he references, how should I say this, he's upholding Paul as an apostle and a fellow brother and teacher. And this is evidence for the support of Paul as an apostle. And this is outside the writings of Paul, which you could take to be a forgery and not to be arrogance or self-promoting if you just come from the writings of Paul. But this is outside of the writings of Paul. This is 2 Peter, the apostle Peter. So if you want to get rid of the apostleship of Paul, then you would also have to get rid of external evidence like this as well. So is 2 Peter a forgery? Justin Best writes in his points, the 50 Reasons to Never Quote Paul Again, he states, the only source of Paul's confirmation, 2 Peter, wasn't written by Peter. There's only one place that Paul is mentioned as a so-called apostle, and that is in the book of 2 Peter. Most scholars agree that Peter didn't write 2 Peter. This doesn't go along with what the way Peter speaks and writes in Peter's education level. Suddenly it goes from 1 Peter, Peter's writing, and it makes sounds like Peter, and then suddenly 2 Peter doesn't sound like Peter anymore. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible. No one agrees. No one agrees that 2 Peter was written by Peter. And in fact, they almost didn't include it in the canon in the New Testament at all. So if that's the only source we have for somebody else saying that Paul was a legitimate apostle, well, it's not a very good one. That's for sure not a very solid one. So here he's coming against the book of 2 Peter because he thinks it's a forgery, and it also provides evidence for Paul's apostleship. He goes on in the Paul paper to say, 2 Peter has several issues that make it very doubtful that it was even written by Peter. Nearly all scholars who study this out and weigh the evidence agree that this book is likely pseudepigraphal, that is, written by someone impersonating another, in this case Peter. During the time of the Reformation, Luther considered it to be second-class scripture. Erasmus completely rejected the letter, and Calvin was very hesitant to use it as a platform of biblical authority. So the main points that Justin is making from these two quotes in the objection to 2 Peter is that most, in his words, or his opinion, most scholars agree that 2 Peter wasn't written by Peter. Number two, that Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, and the early church rejected 2 Peter. 2 Peter is different than 1 Peter. So is there any validity to this objection and these points that are raised right here? What most people will call a scholar, a person by the name of Bart Ehrman, writes on a person who lived back in the early part of the first millennium, and he writes that these references clearly show that Didymus, considered 2 Peter genuine, that he considered the book canonical, is borne out by other references in which, for example, he introduces a proof from 2 Peter with a standardized scriptural introduction, and especially in which he argues from the scriptures that there are fallen angels quoting 2 Peter. So this guy who lived back during that time, called Didymus, did consider 2 Peter to be scripture and canonical. There's also another writing by supposedly Didymus that says that 2 Peter is a forgery and should not be considered scripture, should not be in the canon. Should not be in the canon. But that letter has actually been proven to be a forgery itself. So a forged letter that is supposed to be by Didymus is calling 2 Peter a forged letter. I mean, you can't define irony any better than that. But yeah, even the people back in early times considered 2 Peter to be authentic and scripture. We went on examining Dr. Michael Kruger. He writes in a paper for the Reformed Theological Seminary. You can find the link in our notes that we took and also here on your screen if you'd like to go view that for yourself. But he concludes in his paper that although one may not agree with every argument that seems to support the authorial claims of 2 Peter, one certainly must conclude that the case for 2 Peter's pseudonymity is somewhat contentious and incomplete. So here we've got a couple of scholars already and there's many, many more who attest to the authenticity of 2 Peter. So no, it's not almost unanimous that scholars disregard 2 Peter. I don't even think it's a majority of scholars that think 2 Peter is false. There are many, many, I would even go so far as to say that majority of scholars accept 2 Peter as authentic. Is there some dissension? Is there some argument about the authenticity? Yes. There is nowadays and there was some questions and objections even back in the early days. Does that make it not scripture? No, because it eventually became scripture. It was eventually accepted as scripture and I would dare to say that a lot of people even back in the early church accepted it as authentic and as scripture. Back in the objection, the objection that we read from Justin Best earlier, he also alluded to the fact that people like Martin Luther and Erasmus and John Calvin rejected 2 Peter as well. Now, I couldn't find anything from Erasmus or John Calvin. Maybe I didn't have enough time, but I did find some stuff from Martin Luther. Now, one of the things that Martin Luther wrote about this and you can look at his preface to the epistle of Jude and Martin Luther writes, but this epistle Jude cannot be looked upon as being that of one who was truly an apostle for the author speaks in it of the apostles as being much their junior. It has nothing, it has even nothing peculiar about it except that it refers to the second epistle of Saint Peter from which it has taken nearly all its words and is scarcely anything else than an epistle against our clergy, bishops, priests, and monks. So, not to get into all of Martin Luther's opinions about the book of Jude, but from this quote, you can clearly see that Martin Luther did accept 2 Peter and he even alludes that he thinks that Jude was a copy of 2 Peter and that Jude is actually the false work. In another writing, Martin Luther states, though this epistle of Saint James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and hold it a good book, but to state my own opinion, I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle. What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though Saint Peter or Paul taught it. Again, what preaches Christ would be apostolic, even though Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod did it. So, once again, not to get into any tangential points here about what he thinks about the book of James, but you can see here that it's James that he's going against, not 2 Peter. In fact, he's accepting the writings of Saint Peter, what he deems as Saint Peter. We don't particularly believe in the saints, but Martin Luther did. So, that's a little on modern scholars. That's a little bit about Martin Luther and back during the early days of the Reformation. But what about the early church? Can we find evidence for or against 2 Peter in the early church? Well, if we look at the writings of Origen and Origen's homilies on Joshua, he writes, But when our Lord Jesus Christ comes, whose arrival that prior son of nun designated, he sends priests, his apostles, bearing trumpets hammered thin, the magnificent and heavenly instruction of proclamation. Matthew first sounded a priestly trumpet in his gospel. Mark also. Luke and John each played their own priestly trumpets. Even Peter cries out with trumpets in two of his epistles. Also, James and Jude. In addition, John also sounds the trumpet through his epistles and Luke as he describes the acts of the apostles. Here in the writings of Origen, you can already see an early canon or a list of books for the canon. And in Origen's list of books for the canon, he alludes to two epistles of Saint Peter. Not just one, two. Fair to assume it's first and second Peter? I think so. Even that was back early in the late second century, probably maybe about the turn of the third century. But going on, we see in the Council of Laodicea about the mid fourth century, and they write in canon 60 of what they decreed in this council. And these are the books of the New Testament. Four gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Acts of the Apostles, seven Catholic epistles, two with one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, 14 epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon. So by the fourth century, we can definitely say that both epistles of Peter were accepted as canon. They were canonized here by the Council of Laodicea. Interesting fact, the Council of Laodicea is also where the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day. So check that out. That's interesting as well. So here you can see the early church accepted the writings of Peter in the earliest list that we have from Arrhenius includes the book of first Peter, but in all fairness, it doesn't include the book of second Peter. The Muratorian fragment actually doesn't have first or second Peter in it. But interestingly enough, it alludes to the apocalypse of Peter as being in the list of books that it puts in its list. So why would some people include writings by Peter and others not include writings by Peter? Well, back in the early church, there was a lot of false writings going around, things by groups like the Gnostics. And they would claim authenticity or authority by appealing to be written by a certain apostle that everyone looked up to. One of these people they appealed to or tried to pass their writings off as is Peter. So when a writing of Peter came up, people were very hesitant to just jump in and accept it as authentic and scriptural because of all these other false writings going around. That's one reason for some people in the early church not accepting second Peter as scripture. However, as more evidence came to light, people learned more about these books and how it spread and what it taught and things like that. They eventually came to accept second Peter as canon, as scripture and as authentic. So yes, second Peter is scripture. It is authentic. And there are some differences in first and second Peter. That's true. Justin Best brought that up. And that is very true. The writing style is different. First Peter is different than second Peter. And if you look at the end of first Peter, we can start to get a glimpse of why this is. At the end of first Peter, he's writing that he's being assisted and these things are being written down by a secretary. So he's dictating, more than likely, he's dictating what is to be in this letter of first Peter and his secretary is writing it down. Maybe not word for word. Maybe he's putting it in a little bit of his own flavor, but still the same teachings. However, we don't get that notion from second Peter. There's no statement about being assisted by a secretary in the book of second Peter. Think of Peter also, how educated was he? We look at Paul and whether you accept or reject Paul, you have to admit that Paul was a very well educated man. He would have been very well educated in Greek and in Hebrew, probably Aramaic as well. I don't know about Latin, probably not. But he was a very well educated man. He spoke on a level that was so high that obviously a lot of people misunderstood him, even back in his day. We know they still do today. But he spoke at a very highly educated level. You can see this with a lot of people today. You go listen or read the writings of someone who is highly educated and they're speaking in all these technical terms. You listen to someone like Dale Tuggy or, oh, I forgot his name now. It'll come back to me. But anyway, these people are highly educated and they speak in a way and use terms that the common average person isn't used to. So sometimes we misunderstand or we just don't get it. That was kind of like what Paul was. Peter, however, was a fisherman by trade. He was not someone who was extensively educated. So he would not have written like an educated person would have back in that day. Probably not like his secretary that he had during the book of 1 Peter. So that's why 2 Peter would be different if it was Paul writing it himself instead of using the help of a secretary. So even though 1 and 2 Peter sound different in their writing styles when you look at it, they're still teaching the same precepts and concepts. They're no different. They're still teaching the exact same things that are in line with the rest of Scripture. Even though the writing styles may be different, the teachings are still there. They're still sound. They're still Peter. Moving on, just a few miscellaneous points to try and kind of help wrap up this series. Another point that Justin Best brought up in his videos about the 50 points to never quote Paul again, he tries to make the case that Paul is inarticulate. Now we just covered this in some points, but Paul spoke at a very high level. He wrote at a very high educated level. So sometimes if we're just reading him and not taking him into context, we can assume that maybe he is inarticulate because we don't understand. But that's not the fault of Paul. That's more of our fault for not reading and studying and understanding him in context. Another objection that Justin Best brings up in his videos is that Paul created 30,000 to 50,000 denominations that we have today, because Paul was not a true apostle, because Paul fought against the Torah, because Paul was misunderstood, that this led to the 30,000 to 50,000 denominations that we have today. That is simply not true. That actually speaks about the lack of understanding of the person bringing this objection, their lack of understanding of church history. As you go through church history, you see a lot of things creep into the church that caused it to go astray in many different areas. Number one, the influx and the influx of people that are not in the church. The influence of Gnostics back in the early days. Also, the influence of Marcion back in the day. Then you get into the fourth century, you have the church or Christianity becoming a state religion, taken over by the powers that be. First Constantine, and then with the support and power of the emperor after that, his son and successors and things like that. So there was this whole power thing that came into a lot of doctrine as well, because then it wasn't so much about what the scripture teach, it's more about the majority, what they believe, and do they have the physical power of the sword to enforce what they believe. So there's all these councils and things like that. And then you've got splits when people disagree about something. Obviously, things like the Reformation, and this is due to false teachings that were preceding that. So it wasn't just Paul. People misunderstand Paul sometimes, and this causes a split and a new denomination, but it wasn't Paul's fault. It was a conglomeration of things throughout history that led to these 30 to 50,000 denominations. I don't know what the exact number is, but he's right. And there are a lot of denominations. However, we cannot trace the sole responsibility back to Paul. There's a lot of things that go into those church splits. Another point, we saw where people like Justin Best object to Paul. In order to do that, they have to get rid of external evidence, like the book of 2 Peter. However, they cannot truly do that. Another piece of external evidence is the apostle Luke. Luke is responsible, well it's generally accepted that Luke is the author of the book of Acts. And there's a lot of good things that is said about Paul in the book of Acts. So in order to try and discredit this other external evidence of the witness of the apostle Luke, people like Justin Best try to degrade Luke as being nothing more than Paul's traveling companion, as if they're buddy-buddy and in cahoots in this grand scheme or scam of trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. And that's simply not the case. Luke may have traveled from time to time with Paul, but it wasn't some giant scam. This is all just trying to discredit external evidence that supports the apostleship of Paul. Now as I go through the, or as I went through the objections and the evidence put forth by people like Justin Best, and especially him, especially in his videos, you'll see an overzealousness for the Torah and an overzealousness to come against things like Catholicism and mainstream Churchianity. And I think in the end, that was really the impetus for him to come against Paul. He was deep down inside really trying to come against the false teachings of Churchianity and Catholicism, but in his haste, he erred in getting rid of Paul when he shouldn't have. He should have correctly understood Paul. Then he would have had a better case, but he went astray because of his overzealousness. This led him to first reject Paul and make these videos and come out with that paper. Then he rejected the entirety of New Testament, and then ultimately he went apostate and he is now an atheist trying to come against the entirety of Christianity. Our Messiah, the scriptures, all of it, all of Christianity, all because he was overzealous. And that's a warning and something that each of us should look to. Don't look to your hatred of bad doctrines. Yes, we should fight against and speak out against bad doctrines, but do so in the correct way and by loving those who are still adhering to those bad doctrines. We come against the doctrines, not the holders of the doctrines. We need to expose bad doctrines. We need to teach the good doctrines from scripture and show the error that these people have, but show it from scripture. Another thing that Justin Best, in his videos, was overzealous for was the name. Now, in my opinion, he got the name of our Messiah and the name of Yahweh incorrect. If you go listen to that, you'll see what I mean. If you go listen to that, you'll see what I mean. But he was very overzealous and almost to the point of sacred name theology. And that is another aspect that I think led him to error is that shouldn't be so dogmatic about that. Yes, the name is important, but it's not worth losing our faith over. We need to understand it correctly, use it correctly, and interact with other people in the correct manner regarding this subject. Don't allow your overzealousness to the pronunciation of the name to lead you astray. All in all, I think that, as I've just pretty much outlined already, the points that Justin Best puts forward is pretty much a conspiracy theory just to try to get rid of the Apostle Paul for the purpose of going against the mainstream church. This is why he had to go outside of Paul to try and destroy external evidence like 2 Peter and Luke. This is why, when you listen to what he says in his videos, there's little to any evidence for some of these points. In fact, some of the points that he puts forth in his videos is just his opinion stating in essence what he thinks. He does not put forth evidence. He does not cite scholars or evidence from the writings of the early Christians, anything like that. I don't really see him as putting forth a lot of time and truly understanding the Apostle Paul, either good or bad. I'll put it that way. I really don't think he put in a lot of effort and time into understanding the Apostle Paul. And even when he does provide some scripture, it's not really exhaustive. It's maybe one or maybe two passages. But as you've seen during this series, we've put forth dozens and dozens of passages to prove all these points and what we were examining. So, in the end, it really just does not hold water, these objections that people like Justin Best bring forth. And like I said, it all comes down to what I believe Justin Best has come up with is a conspiracy theory in order to get rid of Paul for the purpose of coming against mainstream churchianity and Catholicism. So, in summary, Paul did teach and uphold the Torah. He did not teach against it. Once again, I'll refer you to that series by 119 Ministries. You can find the link for that down below. Paul even took a vow to physically prove that he taught and upheld the Torah. 2 Peter was accepted by the early church, was accepted by Luther, as we saw, from Luther's own words, and it's also accepted by modern scholars. I would even go so far as to say the majority of modern scholars. Also, 2 Peter is true, it's authentic, and it's reliable. It is scripture, it's part of canon, and it is profitable for reproof and teaching in righteousness. And it's also evidence, reliable evidence, for the apostleship of Paul. And that's just the God-honest truth. So, thank you for joining us for this teaching, and if you made it all the way through this series, hey, kudos. If we did not address a particular objection that you were looking forward to, write to us, let us know that you would like some further information on this. We may make an additional follow-up video, but so far, it seems like all the objections that we have examined, they were fairly easy to debunk. So, if you have any more questions, or if you would like to see an additional portion If you have any more questions, or if you would like to see an additional point that Justin Best or someone like that has put forth, let us know, and we may make an additional follow-up video, or at the very least, just respond to you and give you the information that you may need. If you would, go down below in the comments, let us know what you thought of this particular episode, and also the series in general. While you're down there, make sure to hit that subscribe button and ring the bell. Make sure to hit that like button and hit the share button, and share this around with someone that you may know. Thank you for joining us for another production from God Honest Truth Ministries. We hope that we have been of service to you, and if you have any feedback, then please reach out to us by email, and make sure to visit our website at GodHonestTruth.com for more information, resources, and contact.