 Save 10% with my code Bobby10 on raw, organic, grass-fed and grass-finished, freeze-dried organ meats from grassland nutrition. Link in the description box. All right, guys. Welcome back to the channel. If you're new Marnums Bobby guys, today we have a fascinating video. We're going to react to Paul, a apostle or a post-state by many prophets, one message. People always like to accuse me of, Bobby, you do it all for clicks. But ultimately, I have to admit a little bit egoistically here that I personally really like to watch those videos. If I wouldn't react to them on YouTube, I would watch them in my spare time. And this is the whole premise of this channel, I said it before. I will watch those videos either way in my spare time whilst reading the Quran, whilst reading Hadith. But if you guys want to watch them with me, we can do it here. The topic of Paul is of course of utmost interest to me after reading the Bible and seeing incongruencies, realising that Jesus most certainly didn't eat pork. But out of the sudden after Paul, we are allowed to eat whatever we want. This is why I'm looking forward to watch today's video. Let's have a look. Paul of Tarsus has done more than any other person in history to influence and shape conceptions about person and message of Jesus. In this video, we are going to consider the question, is Paul a reliable source of information about Jesus? The early followers of Jesus were hunted and persecuted by Paul, who started out as a zealous enemy of Christianity. Then one day, while on a sandy desert road to Damascus, Paul said that he had a mystical encounter with a disembodied voice claiming to be Jesus. From there Paul went on to become a super evangelist, dedicating his life to spreading what he claimed was the message of Jesus. Paul's biggest claim to legitimacy as an apostle is the divine revelation which he said he received directly from Jesus. For example, Paul wrote, I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. Rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, there is no way of independently verifying Paul's claims of mystical desert encounters with Jesus. We just have to take him at his word. What we can do to test Paul's apostleship is to scrutinize his writings. He made repeated claims of divine inspiration and since God is all-knowing and all-wise, it stands to reason that Paul's writings should be free of error. Fair enough. In the following prophecy, Paul provided a timeline for the world's end. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. Sleep here is being used as a metaphor for death. So Paul seems to be saying that not all of the believers in his day would die before the return of Jesus. Obviously, this is a false prophecy, as it has been nearly 2000 years since Paul wrote these words, and the return of Jesus still has not taken place. In fact, many New Testament scholars and thinkers conclude that Paul and his followers expected the imminent end of the world. For example, the distinguished New Testament scholar, Professor C. K. Barrett, wrote in his commentary on this prophecy, Paul expects that at the Perusia, second coming of Jesus, he himself will not be among the dead, of whom he speaks in the third person, but among the living, of whom he speaks in the first person. Aside from all of this, it's quite grand if you think about it, that Paul describes when the end of days will be and apparently he would still be alive, even though Jesus said that nobody knows at the end of days only the Father. So this means that Paul has greater visions than Jesus himself. Now, some Christians try to defend Paul by claiming that when he made the statement, we will not all sleep, he was not including the believers of his day among those who will not taste death, but rather he was referring to believers at some unspecified time in the future. So, what did Paul intend by his statement? Should we interpret it literally? Sure, he could mean we the Christians. In look to Paul's created prophecies to help us arrive at the correct understanding. In the following prophecy, Paul advised believers with regards to how they should conduct themselves going forward. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life and I want to spare you this. What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on, those who have wives should live as if they do not. Those who mourn as if they did not. Those who are happy as if they were not. Those who buy something as if it were not theirs to keep. Those who use the things of the world as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. Note Paul's statements about marriage, emotions and materialism. Believers are told that all such activities are futile as time is short and the world is passing away. Believers are advised to avoid such things from now on, i.e. with immediate effect going forward. This is clear proof that Paul genuinely believed that the world's end was imminent. But the wise advice about living as spatulas, not feeling human emotions and being completely detached from material things is nonsensical. As Christians would have been unnecessarily going about life as celibate, emotionless ascetics for nearly two thousand years and counting. This is highly problematic when we consider the standard that the Old Testament lays out for true divine inspiration. If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. We can see that according to the Bible itself, anyone who makes a claim about the future which then fails to come true cannot be inspired by God. Makes sense. One of Paul's core teachings is the idea that salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus alone and not any kind of works. As Paul informed us, but what does it say? The word is near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart. That is the message concerning faith that we proclaim. If you declare with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. And this is something that Jesus never claimed. He never said call me Lord and then you will be saved. Quite on the contrary Jesus said follow me and sin no more which means of course that he upheld the law. Here Paul is quoting from the Old Testament in order to lend support to a theology that we are saved by faith alone and not works. Let's take a look at the original passage in the book of Deuteronomy. The word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. Notice the problem. Paul has taken the court out of its original context. He left out the part that states so you may obey it. In other words, Paul has omitted God's command to obey the Mosaic law. We can see that the original passage in the Old Testament actually establishes the opposite of what Paul intended. Works are indeed important. Of course, what's the point otherwise? I gave you this example countless times. You can be a killer, a rapist, an absolute sinful man and then declare Jesus as Lord and you go into paradise. That doesn't make sense. Another of Paul's core teachings is the idea that all of God's covenantal promises to Abraham were fulfilled by the coming of Jesus. As Paul informed us, the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say and to seeds, meaning many people, but and to your seed, meaning one person who is Christ. Here Paul is making the argument that God's promise to Abraham did not speak of seeds in the plural, but rather seed in the singular and concludes that the single seed is a reference to one man, i.e. Jesus. Let's take a look at the original passage in the Book of Genesis. And I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant and with his seed after him. The original Hebrew word used for seed is Zerah, which is a collective noun that can be used to refer to both a single descendant or many descendants. It depends on the context in which it appears. This is just like Ultimately it is disproven already with Abraham having two sons. Word sheep can mean one sheep or many depending on the context. So how should we interpret the mention of seed in the Old Testament? We find an answer in the same Book of Genesis. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Here God promised Abraham that he will be blessed with a multitude of descendants, likening his seed to the dust of the earth. Therefore we can see that the correct context for seed is not a single seed, as Paul incorrectly interpreted it, but rather many. It's quite obvious. I don't think this really needs explanation. Paul taught that the nation of Israel will be saved from its sins through Jesus, as Paul informed us. And in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written, the Deliverer will come from Zion, he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. Here Paul has quoted from the Old Testament Book of Isaiah. The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins, declares the Lord. Note the clear mismatch. Paul's quote mentions that the Savior will remove sin from Israel, whereas the Book of Isaiah states that their Savior will come to Israel after it is repented from sin. Just what is going on here? Paul may have been quoting from the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament, and the Deliverer shall come for Zion's sake, and shall turn away on godliness from Jacob. We can see that Paul's quote closely matches the Greek Septuagint. Yes. It turns out that there are two variant readings of the Old Testament, the one in Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint that Paul seems to have quoted from. There is in fact strong evidence that the Greek Septuagint contains a later reading. This is because the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest surviving manuscripts for the Old Testament, support the reading that is found in the Hebrew Scriptures. This means that when Paul chose to quote from the Greek Septuagint, he unknowingly used the later incorrect reading. God obviously would not have inspired him to make such a mistake. Fair enough. Paul argued that nobody can achieve righteousness through the works of the Mosaic Law. As Paul informed us, as it is written... I mean it's just fascinating. Over and over again, he preaches things that Jesus never preached, and somehow we as Christians should ignore that now? There is no one righteous, not even... Please let me know in the comments what you think about this, Christians. One. There is no one who understands. There is no one who seeks God. Their throats are open graves. Their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the Law. What Paul quotes here is a compilation of six separate passages from the Old Testament Book of Psalms and Isaiah. He has strung them together to appear as one quote. Stop it here and read this. Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the Law. So ultimately this would mean God perfects his law, gives us that law, and then we decline that law and don't follow it anymore, because we cannot be righteous anyways by following it. One quote. Make sense. Let's examine one of the passages that Paul referenced from Psalm 14. But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company of the righteous. We can see that the original passage is talking about those who say there is no God. It is these people who are said to do no good. Such evildoers are then contrasted with a second group of people referred to as my people, who are said to be the company of the righteous. Yes, and how would you be the righteous if you don't follow the law within that context? Now that Paul has distorted this passage, of course. It does not say, as Paul quotes it, that no human being is righteous, rather it says that those who deny God are not righteous. Yes, make sense. Paul offered the following reason as to why God revealed the law to Moses and the Israelites. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that for this purpose every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. According to Paul, the law was revealed to make us realize that it is impossible to keep, and that we are therefore all guilty before God. Let's compare this to what God has to say about the law in the Old Testament. Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. No, the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so you may obey it. We can see that God says very clearly that the law is not too difficult to obey or beyond our reach, which is the complete opposite of what Paul claimed. Paul even had some very negative- Absolutely unbelievable, man, and even if you couldn't obey it fully, wouldn't it be worth striving for? Things to say about the law. Here he called it a curse. They're righteous. For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. Paul also had bad things to say about his past efforts of keeping the law. Here he referred to it as garbage. As for righteousness based on the law, faultless. But whatever were gains to me, I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. I consider them garbage. Again, such negativity is at odds with what the Old Testament teaches. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws. Exactly right. Then you will live an increase, and the Lord your God will bless you. Yeah. Here God's… If you love your God, then you will obey your God, and with that comes a set of rules. Otherwise, you're not obeying God, but you're obeying your own desires. Stated that obeying the law will bring one blessing and prosperity. You can see that Paul's teachings about the law completely contradict the Old Testament on many points. Whatever. So Paul cannot have gotten his message from the same God that inspired the Old Testament. Doesn't make sense. That's why Christians will say that the New Testament and the Old Testament are different, and they obey the New Testament. Many say that. How can you say that, however? Because that means that the whole Old Testament is useless. So then just throw it away, making a new Bible just within the New Testament. Forms is that towards the end of his ministerial career, Paul visited Jerusalem, which was home to thousands of Christians who zealously obeyed the law of Moses. He had told that senior Christians directly confronted Paul about rumors that he was preaching against the law of Moses. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Then they said to Paul, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. If Paul was a genuine apostle, then we should expect him to be forthcoming about his true beliefs and teachings. Let's now see how Paul actually reacted. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rights and pay their expenses so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you. The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. We can see that the senior Christians in Jerusalem commanded Paul to undergo a public head shaving ritual that was derived from the law of Moses. Paul submissively complied with their command, thus denying the rumors that he preached against the law of Moses. Now, in the previous section we saw examples of Paul's negative attitude towards a mosaic law, labelling it a curse and describing efforts to obey it as garbage. By conducting himself in this manner, Paul was being too faced, for he behaved in one way to the faces of senior Christians, and another way in his writings. Absolutely, this is what the Christians blame the Muslims for. They screamed, but ultimately Paul deceived the early Christians. Following examples, Paul wrote that Jews are the same as non-Jews, and no longer bound to keep any of the mosaic law. There is neither Jew nor Greek. So that would mean ultimately that the Jews are just like pagans, because pagans didn't follow those laws. We have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code. We can see that Paul taught the very things he was accused of and deceptively denied. Yep, I already made mine, how about you guys? In this video we've examined a number of Paul's writings and found many issues which seriously undermine his claims of apostleship and divine inspiration. For sure. A big problem which arises from this is the fact that Paul dominates the pages of the New Testament, with over half of its books being attributed to him. Yes. So when one reads New Testament and takes it at face value, you are viewing Jesus through the lens of Paul, who has been proven to be an unreliable source. Sincere truth-seeking Christians face the difficult task of peeling away layers of myth in order to try and arrive at the true historical Jesus. God, out of his mercy for mankind, did not leave us in a state of confusion. The Quran was revealed and unraveled centuries of myth-making around Jesus. Muslims are the true followers of Jesus. As thanks to the Quran, we have access to and implement his original undistorted message. To learn more about the true message of Jesus, please download your free copy of the book, Jesus Man Messenger Messiah from the link below. I will. Thanks. All right, that's it for today's video. Absolutely interesting stuff. Many little details that I haven't thought about by myself. However, it doesn't change anything on my perspective. I personally do not trust Paul as an authentic source either. As I said, back in the day when I was 15 years old, I started reading into old scripts. And then when I found out that even Christians weren't commanded initially to eat pork, I stopped eating pork back then. That is roughly 20 years ago because I didn't find it trustworthy and therefore I couldn't follow it. Paul for me is a con man. Paul for me is leading people astray. All right, guys, but that's it for today's video. If you liked it, leave it a thumbs up. If you haven't subscribed already, guys, please do so. And if you want to support me on Patreon, all the links are in the description box below. Thank you so much. As always, may God bless you all. Much love and peace.