Apostle
Paul: a polite bribe documentary
A
refutation of the lies, exaggerations and accusations within
Introduction
Scrolling
through the films on google play one day I was surprised to see as a
title an accusation of bribery aimed at the apostle Paul. As a
Christian I took this quite seriously and immediately watched the
trailer for the film, it was full of scholars taking pot-shots at
Paul the apostle for taking his offering to the poor to Jerusalem
insinuating it was really a bribe!
Taking
a look at the reviews around the net I found almost nothing but
praise for this film! Perhaps if I watched it I might find it was
something different than the title and trailer promised? Not so!
After taking the time to rent and watch the film taking notes the
whole way through I can say this is a very nicely presented attack on
the whole new testament! Great artwork, intelligent sounding
'scholars' from big universities and a heavy but subtle attack on the
Gospel is what you will find here.
I
feel it is necessary that a believer should mount a defence against
the tangled web of lies, accusations and exaggerations contained in
the film. In defence of Gods word and the apostles on whose writings
the whole of Gods church relies.
To
begin with I will list a summery of the films lies and assumptions
about the apostles, history and Paul. Also I will make mention a list
of propaganda techniques and logical fallacies contained in the
arguments used in the film. Following that I will index a list of
short rebuttals I will write for each and every lie and fallacy I can
see in the film:
Lies,
exaggerations and assumptions in the film
lie upon lie upon
lie...
- Jesus was a Palestinian.
- The book of Acts is an 'attempted history'.
- Acts was written decades after the things it details.
- Paul history is different to acts.
- Luke failed to mention Paul delivering Gold to the Judea church.
- Luke whitewashed and glossed over the hard truth.
- Paul used bribery to persuade the apostles to accept 'his gospel'.
- Paul’s gospel is somehow different than the gospel of the Jerusalem church.
- The apostles accepted Paul’s first offering detailed in acts 11:27-30 which was his first 'bribe' this gave Paul credibility.
- Paul is a 'self proclaimed apostle to the gentiles'
- There can only be 12 apostles because the new Jerusalem has 12 pillars.
- Barnabas didn’t agree with Paul’s mission to the gentiles.
- James was a follower of the Law and didn’t agree with Paul’s gospel.
- The apostles expected Paul to pay for support of his message.
- The apostles rejected 'Paul’s gospel' in the end.
- Paul died a lonely failure in prison with no friends.
- Paul being worried for the churches is the same as having a nervous breakdown.
- When Paul was talking about super apostles he was also referencing the real apostles.
- Jerusalem church were the same as the judaizers.
- Judaizers are followers of the evil eye???
- Paul considered himself the supreme apostle.
- The apostles were fine with money laundering.
- James did not accept any of Paul’s collection at all.
- Paul bought a gentile into the temple.
- Paul destroys Judaism.
- The Jewish church hated Paul.
- James may have tried to get Paul killed in the temple.
- To James the gospel to the gentiles was an experiment.
- Jesus was only for the Jews.
- Jesus gospel is salvation by law.
- Paul’s gospel is salvation by faith.
- Paul didn’t preach when he came back to Rome.
- Luke had an agenda to make it seem as all believers were getting along rather than telling the truth.
- Luke covered up tensions in hi writing.
- Luke wrote nonsense on occasion to cover up the truth.
- Jesus would not have supported Paul.
logical
fallacies used in the film
Logical fallacies
are flawed reasoning’s that often sound plausible until you think
about them.
- Appeal to authority: trust these guys they're from big universities that must mean everything they say is correct and true without any bias? Right?
- Appeal to numbers: most scholars believe X therefore X must be true numbers never lie? Do they?
- Ad ignorantiam: Because it isn’t written down it didn’t happen??
- Argument from final Consequences: X must have been betrayed by Y because Y knew where X was going?
- Non-sequiter: 3+7 = 4 ? or was it =5 or maybe =157?
Rebuttals
list
As there is quite
a lot of ground to cover with the various claims, lies and
exaggerations ect. I will go through them all on a point by point
basis:
- Why Jesus was NOT a Palestinian
- Was the book of Acts really written decades later than the events it contains?
- Did Luke fail to mention Apostle Paul bringing the offering?
- Did Luke white wash facts for the appearance of unity in the church?
- Is it a sin to give and accept bribes, even polite ones?
- Did Paul bribe the Jerusalem church for legitimacy?
- Was Paul’s gospel different to the Gospel of Jerusalem church?
- Why were there 13 apostles? Was Paul a self proclaimed apostle to the gentiles?
- Did Barnabas disagree with Paul over ministering to the gentiles.
- Did James agree with Paul’s gospel?
- Would Jesus support Paul’s gospel to the gentiles? Or was it only for Jews??
- Galatians 2:9 scripture misquoted in the movie.
- Paul shook Judean dust from his feet! Lie in movie.
- Is being worried for someone you care about an nervous breakdown?
- Did Paul believe James and Peter were False apostles?
- Evil eye? More dodgy mistranslated scripture.
- Was Paul rejected by Jerusalem church in the end? Did they reject his offering?
- Was James a 'Money launderer'?
- Did Paul bring a gentile into the temple as the film claims?
- Does Paul 'destroy Judaism?'
- Did James and the Jerusalem church hate Paul and try to have him killed?
- Did Paul not come back to Rome as a preacher as claimed in the film?
- Did Luke write nonsense?
- Faith or works of the law some examples.
- Where was God in this film? Where was the Holy spirit in this film?
- Why did Paul ask for prayer? A good example.
- The Gospel according to the book of James.
- Conclusion.
- Why Jesus was NOT a Palestinian
The first
erroneous statement in the documentary says Jesus is a Palestinian
Jew. Is he really?
Say the word
Palestinian and what comes into you head? For most perhaps the
constant struggle depicted on the news between Israel and the small
nation known as Palestine, Perhaps if you are a Muslim you may think
of Israel as occupiers in the land? Whatever the case the whole
situation between Palestine and Israel is incredibly politically
charged.
So to call Jesus
who was biblically a Jew who lived and had his ministry in what was
at the time Israel is also something quite political and emotive for
some. So where does this Palestinian label come from, is there any
truth in it?
In
1989 a Palestinian man named Naim Ateek published a book called:
'Justice
and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation'
through this work he sought to relate Jesus to the plight of
Palestine and redefine Jesus as a Palestinian The theological method
used to do this is simple, if the Bible passage does not fit with his
view throw it out, if not use it for the cause.
Here
is a quote from the book {page 81-82}: When
confronted with a difficult passage in the Bible . . . one needs to
ask, . . . Does this fit the picture I have of God that Jesus
revealed to me? . . . If it does, then the passage is valid and
authoritative. If not, then I cannot accept it as valid or authority.
Clearly
using such methods you can make Jesus fit almost any view you like
and thus is completely invalid as a method of logical reasoning
and/or exegesis So is there any reason at all to call Jesus a
Palestinian? Well in A.D 135 the Romans did rename the whole area of
Israel Palestine This was long after Jesus had Died and resurrected
then acceded into heaven before the eyes of men. The area however is
now to the annoyance of many called Israel again, therefore whether
it was Jesus time or now Jesus was by no means at all Palestinian in
any way shape or form.
- Was the book of Acts really written decades later than the events it contains?
Polite
Bribe clearly states that the book of Acts is: 'written decades
after(the events)' and that it is dated at around 90 ad. Acts is
quite heavily attacked in the documentary along with Luke, but though
many scholars may believe there is a late date for acts there are a
number of good reasons to believe it was written far earlier perhaps
even before 62 ad!
I
borrowed this information from a good brother at CARM.org a great
website for refuting lies about the word of God.
- Reasons for an early date, before A.D. 70 and possibly no later than A.D. 62.
- Internal evidence that the writer was a companion of Paul
- The "we" passages: "Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; and 27:1-28:16. The author may, in these sections, be using a travel diary that he himself wrote at an earlier time, drawing on a diary written by a companion of Paul."1
-
- The fall of Jerusalem in A.D 70 is hugely significant, and Acts leaves you with the impression that the temple is still standing.
- Luke did mention fulfilled prophecies, i.e., Acts 11:28,"And one of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius." So, why not mention the destruction of Jerusalem as was prophesied? Wouldn't it have added to the validity of the Christian message?
- A.D. 64. No mention of the horrendous persecution of Nero in A.D. 64.
- Nero lived from A.D. 37-68. He ruled from A.D. 54 to 68 and persecuted the Christians exceedingly around A.D. 64 when Rome suffered an immense fire. Therefore, the persecution had to occur during those years, yet there is no mention of this in Acts--a book that records the history of the early Christian church.
- Luke recorded Christian Martyrs: Stephen in Acts 7:55-60 and James in Acts 12:2. Why not write about the martyrs of the Nero persecution as well--if it happened before Acts was written?
- A.D. 64. No Roman persecution of the Church mentioned.
- "The local government at Ephesus is represented as distinctly helpful towards Paul and his companions, while the cause of persecution against the church is in every case the intrigues of the Jews. This is precisely what might be expected before Nero's persecution in A.D. 64."2
- A.D. 62. No mention of the death of the apostle Paul.
- The death of the apostle Paul is dated from anywhere between 62 AD to 68.3 Acts 28:30-31 tells us that Paul was under arrest for two years but fails to mention his execution. Why, if it was written after his execution?
- "The time of the writing of this history may be gathered from the fact that the narrative extends down to the close of the second year of Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome. It could not therefore have been written earlier than A.D. 61 or 62, nor later than about the end of A.D. 63. Paul was probably put to death during his second imprisonment, about A.D. 64, or, as some think, 66."4
- A.D. 62. No mention of the death of the apostle James
- James was a very important figure in the early church who was martyred around A.D. 62. Why no mention of his death if Acts was written after A.D. 70, and it was Luke's procedure to record the deaths of martyrs (Acts 7:55-60; 12:2)? The James spoken of here is not James the brother of John who was recorded as being executed in Acts 12:1-2. This is the James spoken of in Acts 15:13ff who is also mention in Gal. 1:19 as an apostle, the Lord's brother.
Objections answered
- Acts shows influence of Josephus within its text which means it was written in the 90's since that is when Josephus wrote.
- But, it could be that Josephus, who published his work Antiquities in A.D. 93, used Luke as a reference.
- It is possible that both Josephus and Luke used a common source.
- If Luke cited Josephus, then why do they disagree on so many other points such as "the story of the Egyptian insurrectionist (Ac. 21:38) and Herod's death (Ac.12:21ff, Ant. 19.8.2)."5
- Luke used the Gospel of Mark which is dated around A.D. 60 to 65.
- This makes an assumption that Mark was written at a late date. It also assumes that Luke used Mark. It may be, but if Mark was written early, there is no problem at all.
- If the dating of Mark is before A.D. 65 and if Luke used Mark and since both failed to mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple of A.D. 70, then it would seem logical to conclude that they were both written before A.D. 70.
- Modern Scholars affirm a date of authorship after A.D. 70--some even after A.D. 100.
- There are scholars who affirm late dates as well as early dates. Scholars are not all in agreement nor are they without their prejudices and agendas that govern how they interpret data. As more and more people become antagonistic to the Gospel, we must expect that so-called scholars who openly deny the miraculous will conclude that Acts was written late. But since the debate rages on, it is best to look at the internal evidence, as done above, to see what best fits the evidence.
- If someone said that a majority of the scholars affirm a late date, then this is argumentum ad populum; the majority believe it, so it must be true. One cannot discount outright that many scholars affirm a late date, but neither can one discount that many affirm an early date.
- Did Luke fail to mention Apostle Paul bringing the offering?
Polite
bribe clearly states in the trailer and movie Luke failed to mention
bringing a large collection of Gold, did he really?
One
of the key points behind this movie is to undermine Luke’s
narrative of events and thus when Luke’s version of events clashes
with the film makers version Luke is accused of glossing over things
for the sake of unity.
Did
Luke fail to mention Paul bringing an offering?
Act
24:17
Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and
offerings.
Nope,
Luke clearly mentions here Paul bought an offering to Jerusalem. So
why was it only mentioned later and not in Acts 21 (the meeting with
Jerusalem church) some may say?
Well
could it be perhaps that money was a secondary issue here? These are
the very apostles of Jesus, the Son of the living God who said in the
book of Mathew 6:24 “No
man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love
the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye
cannot serve God and mammon.
“
No
Luke did not fail to mention the offering and no money was not a
central issue. There was no need to mention money in Acts 21 far more
important issues are discussed in that chapter.
- Did Luke white wash facts for the appearance of unity in the church?
For
any Bible believing Christian an accusation of dishonesty at Luke or
any writer of the Bible is a very serious charge. Fortunately one of
the self authenticating factors of scripture is its self effacing
honesty about its greatest heroes Take for instance King David affair
with Bathsheba the same hero hew took down a giant with a single
stone, or perhaps Elijah the prophet who was sore afraid of a crazy
queen. The Bible never can be accused of glossing over the falier of
its greatest men and women of faith.
So
what about Luke? Did he willingly hide important facts that could
make it seem like there was disunity in the early church??
This
accusation against Luke is really very simple to disprove, the book
of acts makes mention of disputes and arguments very candidly. It was
not needful for Luke to mention such instances except for the concern
of honesty.
Act
15:7
And when there had been much
disputing,
Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and
brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,
that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and
believe.
Act
15:39
And the contention
was so sharp between them,
that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took
Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
The
fact is at this time in church history a lot of things were being
argued about and sorted out by the Holy Spirits leading. Luke wrote
about the arguments with no problem and covered the most important
facts focusing on the work of the Holy spirit.
We
wouldn’t even know about the dispute between Paul and Barnabas
unless Luke wrote it in acts, yet these were important men at the
start of the church age, furthermore the mention of much disputing
with the apostles isn’t too favourable for keeping up the
appearance of unity. Clearly Luke is not in the habit of whitewashing
arguments, instead he covers them in detail giving a history of the
most important facts.
A
further Point to be considered is what would Lukes opinion be of
dishonesty? In acts 5 we can find a clear case of dishonesty very
heavily punished by God in the church
Act
5:2
And kept back part
of the price, his wife also being privy to
it,
and brought a certain part, and laid it
at the apostles' feet.
Act
5:3
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to
the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part
of the price of the land?
Act
5:4
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was
it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in
thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Would
Luke dare to be dishonest while knowing and believing such was the
punishment for dishonesty? I think not.
5.
Is
it a sin to give and accept bribes, even polite ones?
The
title of this movie is very provocative as I mentioned earlier, it
amounts to an accusation
of
sin both on the apostle Paul and the Jerusalem church. Here are some
scriptures both about giving and receiving bribes:
Exo
23:8
And you shall take no
bribe,
for the bribe blinds the wise and perverts the words of the
righteous.
Pro
15:27
He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house, but he who hates
bribes
shall live.
Psa
26:10
in whose hands is
a plot, and their right hand is full of a bribe.
Pro
29:4
The king establishes the land by judgment; but he taking
bribes
tears it down.
Deu
16:19
You shall not pervert judgement; you shall not respect persons, nor
take a
gift.
For a bribe
blinds
the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.
Mat
26:15
And he said to
them,
What
will you give me,
and I will betray Him to you? And they appointed to him thirty
pieces of silver.
Act
8:18
And when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through laying on
of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,
Act
8:19
saying, Give me this power also, that on whomever I lay hands, he
may receive the
Holy Spirit.
Act
8:20
But Peter said to him, May your silver perish with you, because you
have thought
that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Clearly
from the above selection of scriptures both old and new testament
taking and giving bribes in any context is sinful activity. The
documentary both accuses Paul of giving a bribe and the apostles of
taking one. If this was the case Paul and the apostles would be going
against the very principles they preached.
6.
Did
Paul bribe the Jerusalem church for legitimacy?
At
around 27 minuets into the documentary we get the accusation that the
Jerusalem church had a marriage of convenience with Paul as they
liked money! Apparently the Apostles loved money so much they would
compromise the truth for it!? Of course in reality they saw Paul as a
brother and accepted his testimony, Paul was not bribing anybody but
helping the poor of those that believed.
Act
11:27
And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
Act
11:28 And there stood up one of them
named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great
dearth(famine) throughout all the world:
which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Act
11:29 Then the disciples, every man
according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren
which dwelt in Judea:
Act
11:30
Which also they did, and sent
it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
Here
we have money sent by the disciples at Antioch to relieve the poor in
Judea, was this a bribe?? it was very clearly help to brothers in
need. Also, according to scripture Paul did not even initiate this
collection for Judea.
7.
Was
Paul’s gospel different to the Gospel of Jerusalem church?
No
is the simple answer, however there was a time of working things out
which is detailed in Acts. The following scriptures show the unity of
Paul with the Jerusalem church, especially Apostle Peter:
Act
15:5
But
there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,
saying, That it was needful to circumcise
them, and to command them
to keep the law of Moses.
Act
15:6
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this
matter.
Act
15:7
And when there had been much disputing, Peter
rose up, and said unto them, Men and
brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,
that the
Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act
15:8
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them
the Holy
Ghost,
even as he did
unto us;
Act
15:9
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by
faith.
Act
15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke
upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear?
Act
15:11
But we believe that through
the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
we shall be saved,
even as they.
Act
15:12
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas
and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among
the Gentiles by them.
Act
15:13
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and
brethren, hearken unto me:
Act
15:14
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to
take out of them a people for his name.
Act
15:15
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act
15:16
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of
David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins
thereof, and I will set it up:
Act
15:17
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all
the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth
all these things.
Act
15:18
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act
15:19
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among
the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act
15:20
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of
idols, and from
fornication, and from
things strangled, and from
blood.
Its
extremely clear from this passage both Peter and James by reason of
the Holy spirit witness and reasoning from the old testament
scripture agreed that salvation is by faith through grace in Jesus.
Clearly this is the very same Gospel as taught by Paul throughout his
epistles.
Gal
2:7
But
contrariwise, when
they saw
that the
gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the
gospel
of the circumcision was
unto Peter;
Gal
2:8
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the
circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal
2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given unto me, they
gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;
that we should go
unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Again
we see here in Galatians Paul gives testimony to the fact the
Apostles of the church in Jerusalem agreed with Paul’s gospel to
the gentiles outreach.
2Pe
3:15
And
account that
the long-suffering of our Lord is
salvation; even
as our beloved
brother
Paul
also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe
3:16
As
also in all
his
epistles,
speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be
understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they
do
also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
This
Scripture at the end of the second epistle of Peter is extremely
important as it is written by the Apostle Peter himself and as you
can see clearly Paul and all his writings are given credence by
Peter! Furthermore those who come against Paul’s teachings are
called unstable and unlearned and it is said they do it to their own
destruction!
So
unless you want to accuse Peter, Paul and Luke of telling lies or at
least twisting truth its quite clear that the Jerusalem church
preached the same gospel as Paul and approved of his writings and
his gospel.
8.
Why
were there 13 apostles? Was Paul a self proclaimed apostle to the
gentiles?
As
a Christian I know the number 12 is pretty important in the Bible.
Jesus chose 12 apostles, there are the 12 tribes of Israel and of
course in the new Jerusalem the 12 pearly gates. So it not a
surprise that some get a bit confused as to why there are 13
apostles, for some they just cant get that God would break the mould
of 12.
So
why would Jesus commission a 13th
apostle? The answer has always seemed pretty simple to me, The Jews
are Gods chosen nation a special people, they received the law of
Moses and had all the prophets and as Jesus himself said (John 4:22
“salvation is of the Jews”).
When
Jesus came in person his ministry was mostly confined to Israel as
Jesus said in the book of Matthew
Mat
15:24
But he answered and said, I
am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And
as we see from Jesus first commission to the disciples they were
first sent to the Jews and were to avoid gentiles specifically:
Mat
10:5
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into
any
city
of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat
10:6
But
go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
The
Jews were the first to be given the opportunity to welcome Messiah,
who he was and how he was to come is written throughout the whole law
and the prophets. But as in the Parable
of
the vineyard given by Jesus just after he entered Jerusalem as king,
the Jews had slain the prophets and would kill Gods Son too! And so
the Kingdom would be given away to others who would bear good fruit:
Mat
21:33
Hear
another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a
vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it,
and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far
country:
Mat
21:34
And
when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the
husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
Mat
21:35
And
the husbandmen took his
servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
(they killed the prophets)
Mat
21:36
Again,
he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them
likewise.
Mat
21:37
But
last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my
son.
Mat
21:38
But
when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is
the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
Mat
21:39
And
they caught him, and cast
him
out
of the vineyard, and slew
him.
(they
killed Jesus)
Mat
21:40
When
the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those
husbandmen?
Mat
21:41
They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and
will let out his
vineyard unto
other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
(The
Gentiles)
Again
in Matthew 22 we see Jesus showing after his rejection of the temple
and the spiritual fruit of Jerusalem that instead the King would send
out servants to the highways and byways to fill his wedding.
Mat
22:9
Go
ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to
the marriage.
Mat
22:10 So
those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all
as many as they found, both
bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
Those
who were invited (the Jews) rejected the kings invite in this
parable, so the king sent out to get replacements (the gentiles). We
see this finally and fully revealed in Jesus great commission:
Mat
28:19
Go
ye therefore, and teach all
nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost:
No
longer was the Gospel to be confined to the Jews but to the whole
world because the Jews had rejected as a nation their king and
messiah. So why then a 13th
apostle? the Jews were always shown preference by God right from the
beginning and in like manner they were also given one apostle per
tribe! The gentiles who were not a people to God received a single
apostle but yet an apostle who worked harder than them all in
reaching out to the world. The reason there was thirteen then is this
God showed preference to the Jews first with the 12,then by having an
apostle to the gentiles who had only seen Jesus in a vision showed
how by spiritual vision the gentiles would be grafted into Gods
kingdom. The new Jerusalem has 12 gates because the foundation of the
Gospel is still the 12 tribes and 12 apostles. The gentiles who
believe are declared to be Abrams seed by faith and thus part of the
12 tribes:
Gal
3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on
Christ. (wedding
garment)
Gal
3:28 There is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor
free, there is neither male nor female: for ye
are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal
3:29
And if ye be
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed,
and heirs according to the promise.
This
means we also by faith we are spiritual Jews and are given our
wedding Garments. This also means those 12 gate are also for the
Gentiles who are declared Jews by faith. Thus the 13th
Apostle is not a foundation as the others are described in revelation
21:14, but one who brings in the good and the bad from the high ways
and byways to take the place of those who rejected the kings son.
A
final note The church has not replaced the Jews or Israel completely
as some might say, some Jews will accept or have already accepted
Jesus. There is coming a time again when Israel will be the spiritual
center of the earth according to scripture.
9.
Did
Barnabas disagree with Paul over ministering to the gentiles.
As
the movie attacks the connection between Paul and the 12 apostles no
dispute is left unused in attacking that bond. At about 17:22 into
the documentary we hear that Barnabas and Paul had a sharp dispute
because Paul wanted to spend more time reaching out to the gentiles
and Barnabas didn’t like it so he wanted to bring with them another
Jew.
This
however is completely untrue, the only narrative we have of this
argument is in the book of Acts here:
Act
15:35
Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching
the word of the Lord, with many others also.
Act
15:36 And some days after Paul said
unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city
where we have preached the word of the Lord, and
see
how they do.
Act
15:37
And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was
Mark.
Act
15:38
But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who
departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the
work.
Act
15:39
And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed
asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed
unto Cyprus;
Act
15:40
And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the
brethren unto the grace of God.
Act
15:41
And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
So
why was there an argument? Barnabas wanted to bring John. Why didn’t
Paul want to bring John? Because John had left them, this happening
is also mentioned in acts 13:
Act
13:13
Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga
in Pamphylia: and John
departing from them returned to Jerusalem.
For
whatever reason John had left in the middle of the work of preaching
the Gospel and went back to Jerusalem Why did he leave? It had
nothing to do with preaching to gentiles that’s for sure as Paul
was preaching in Jewish synagogues when John left them.
Its
very obvious from the only record we have of this incident that
Barnabas and Paul parted company over the issue of taking John along
with them and NO other reason is given or necessary (unless you have
an agenda yourself).
10.Did
James agree with Paul’s gospel?
As
I showed in point 7 Apostle Peter clearly gave accent to Paul’s
teaching and writings in both the book of Acts and 2Peter. Was James
any different? Lets take another look at acts 15:
Act
15:5
But
there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,
saying, That it was needful to circumcise
them, and to command them
to keep the law of Moses.
Act
15:6
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this
matter.
Act
15:7
And when there had been much disputing, Peter
rose up, and said unto them, Men and
brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,
that the
Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act
15:8
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them
the Holy
Ghost,
even as he did
unto us;
Act
15:9
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by
faith.
Act
15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke
upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear?
Act
15:11
But we believe that through
the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
we shall be saved,
even as they.
Act
15:12
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas
and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among
the Gentiles by them.
Act
15:13
And after they had held their peace, James
answered,
saying, Men and
brethren, hearken unto me:
Act
15:14
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to
take out of them a people for his name.
Act
15:15
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act
15:16
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of
David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins
thereof, and I will set it up:
Act
15:17
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and
all the Gentiles,
upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these
things.
Act
15:18
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act
15:19
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among
the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act
15:20
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of
idols, and from
fornication, and from
things strangled, and from
blood.
*First
of all did James in any way disagree with what Peter just said? No.
*Was
James Gospel here for Gentiles? Yes, he reasoned from scriptural
prophecy!
*Wast
the Gospel here by grace or works? Grace!
*Was
it a different Gospel to Paul’s Gospel? No.
Perhaps
it is the passage in Acts 21 that stumbles some that at the return of
Paul James asks Paul to show he has not forsaken Moses and keeps the
law? Here is the scripture detailing this occasion:
Act
21:20
And when they heard it,
they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how
many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they
are all zealous of the law:
Act
21:21
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which
are among the Gentiles to forsake
Moses,
saying that they ought not to circumcise their
children, neither to walk after the customs.
Act
21:22
What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for
they will hear that thou art come.
Act
21:23
Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a
vow on them;
Act
21:24
Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with
them, that they may shave their
heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed
concerning thee, are nothing; but that
thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act
21:25
As
touching the Gentiles
which believe, we have written and
concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep
themselves from things
offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from
fornication.
From
this scripture we can see that James had a problem that rumours had
been spread about Paul with some truth and some error. Paul didn’t
preach that people should forsake Moses but instead fulfil Moses
through Christ as indeed Jesus himself taught.
1Co
9:7
Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a
vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a
flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
1Co
9:8 Say I these things as a man? or
saith not the law the same also?
1Co
9:9
For it is written in the law
of Moses, Thou shalt not
muzzle the mouth of the ox
that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
1Co
9:10
Or saith he it
altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this
is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he
that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
Paul
here is not teaching people to forsake Moses law but to see its
magnified, principle and spiritual fufilment. As Jesus expanded on
the law so as to magnify in the sermon on the mount, so too does Paul
with the law of Moses making the law a principle for all things
rather than a very specific thing as it was in the first instance.
Further more Paul had great respect for Moses and reasoned often from
Moses writings, thus giving credence to the fact he considered Moses
just as highly as anybody else.
Of
course the Judaisers had an agenda so they exaggerated Paul’s
message to make it seem Paul was against Moses
One
thing thing that was true however was Paul’s opposition to
circumcising new believers and no doubt children would have been
included in that. As we see here in Galatians Paul took a strong
stand:
Gal
5:1
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us
free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal
5:2 Behold, I
Paul say unto you, that
if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal
5:3 For I
testify again to every
man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal
5:4 Christ
is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by
the law; ye are fallen from grace.
As
Peter had said earlier in acts 15:
Act
15:9
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by
faith.
Act
15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke
upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear?
Act
15:11
But we believe that through
the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
we shall be saved,
even as they.
Salvation
was not by the Law through Jesus but by faith, The problem wasn’t
circumcision itself but the fact that people were trying to be
justified by it. In Peters unanimous statement for Jerusalem church,
to which James did not disagree, salvation was by grace. The
judaisers wanted to bring Christians back to being justified by the
law and in a sense if anybody got circumcised for
that reason then
they were rejecting the new covenant of salvation by faith through
grace. Paul actually did circumcise Timothy himself as detailed here:
Act
16:1
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple
was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a
Jewess, and believed; but his father was
a Greek:
Act
16:2
Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and
Iconium.
Act
16:3
Him would Paul
have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of
the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his
father was a Greek.
Paul
here circumcised Timothy for the right reason, to remove as much
opposition to Timothy as possible as his father was not a Jew. This
fulfilled the principle of Paul that he would become as those around
him in order to win the for the Gospel:
1Co
9:19
For though I be free from all men,
yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1Co
9:20
And
unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them
that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that
are under the law;
1Co
9:21
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law
to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are
without law.
Paul’s
battle then was not with Moses or the apostles neither James or Peter
but with the Judaisers
who wanted people to go back under the law to be justified by it.
James being in the middle of Jerusalem especially felt the obligation
to show that Jesus did not destroy but fulfil the law and thus, in
the liberty that was his through Christ kept the law to win Jews.
Paul being the apostle to the gentiles had a far greater battle with
the judaisers as those he won for Jesus were not keeping the law in
the first place. those converts exposed far more brightly the fact
the law was fulfilled in Christ, and thus bough to the fore the
offence of the cross.
To
summarise then Paul and James both taught salvation by faith, but for
the sake of winning Jews both Paul and James kept the law on occasion
showing that Moses was not destroyed but fulfilled
11.Would
Jesus support Paul’s gospel to the gentiles? Or was it only for
Jews??
At
1:21:19 the closing segment of the documentary we are told something
quite dire, Apparently the whole church rests on Paul who Jesus
himself would not have supported! This really is of course the whole
grind of the film, tearing apart the new testament undermining the
Gospel, so its not too surprising.
Really
this is a silly question as Jesus was the very one who appeared to
Paul, but as some like to imagine Paul was lying or mentally ill and
having hallucinations I will clear up the point.
So
would Jesus have supported Paul’s gospel outreach to the gentiles?
As I already answered this point more in depth in point 7, I will
just here prove this claim wrong with 2 verses in Jesus own words:
Mat
28:19
Go
ye therefore, and
teach
all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost:
That’s
Gentiles folks...
Mar
16:15
And he said unto them, Go
ye into
all
the world,
and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark
agrees with Matthew Jesus commanded his followers to go to the
gentiles, simple. But was it the same gospel? Did Jesus want them to
follow the law? Lets look at the next thing Jesus said in Mark:
Mar
16:16
He
that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned.
What
about in John:
Joh
3:15
That
whosoever believeth
in
him should not perish, but have eternal life.
And
from Apostle Peter:
1Pe
1:21
Who by him do believe
in
God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your
faith and hope might be in God.
It
really is clear from both Jesus and Apostle Peter that salvation is
by believing, not by keeping the law. I didn’t use any of the many
scriptures from Luke or Paul here since the film maker seems not to
trust their account.
Jesus
Gospel is the very same as Paul’s Gospel, and Jesus Gospel was to
the Gentiles and the Jews, Scripture is very clear on this.
12.Galatians
2:9 scripture misquoted in the movie.
The
Documentary does not often quote scripture but when it does it really
gets it wrong. I have no idea which Bible the got this translation of
Galatians 2:9.
Here
is the important part of the verse that’s wrong:
“Supposed
to be pillars”
If
you take this translation the whole verse gets a different sense, as
if Paul was saying the apostles are not doing their job.
Lets
read the trusty King James version rendering of this verse and then
follow with a few other translations:
King
James
Gal
2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed
to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should
go
unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
American
standard
Gal
2:9
and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and
Cephas and John, they who were reputed
to be pillars,
gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should
go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;
Young’s
Literal
Gal
2:9
and having known the grace that was given to me, James, and Cephas,
and John, who were esteemed
to be pillars,
a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that
we to the nations, and they to the circumcision may
go
,
if
you take a look at the Greek word in question in the bible dictionary
this is what you get:
dok-eh'-o
A
prolonged form of a primary verb δόκω
dokō
(used only as an alternate in certain tenses; compare the base of
G1166);
of the same meaning; to think;
by implication to seem
(truthfully
or uncertainly): - be accounted,
(of own) please (-ure), be of reputation,
seem (good), suppose,
think, trow.
As
I have highlighted there the word suppose is a viable definition,
however any English person knows the sense between supposing
something and saying something is supposed to be something is quite
different.
If
I say 'your
supposed to be a good man'
in English the sense is your not a good man but should be.
But
if I say 'you
have a reputation/account of being a good man.'
or
'You seem to be a good man.'
or
even 'I suppose you to be a good man.'
it
means I really believe you are a good man or others tell me its the
case by reputation.
Its
very clear in the dictionary the sense in which the word is to be
taken. So where on earth did this come from?
Perhaps
another dictionary?
dokeō
Thayer
Definition:
1) to be of opinion,
think, suppose
2) to seem, to be
accounted, reputed
3) it seems to me
3a) I think, judge:
thus in question
3b)
it seems good to, pleased me, I determined
Nope
the thayler agrees too.. Perhaps someone has an agenda or opinion
they want to bolster with a slight mistranslation that changes the
entire sense of the verse?
Additional:
I managed to find one translation that supports this translation:
Contemporary
English Version
Gal
2:9
James, Peter, and John realized that God had given me the message
about his undeserved kindness. And these
men are supposed to be the backbone of the church.
They even gave Barnabas and me a friendly handshake. This was to show
that we would work with Gentiles and that they would work with Jews.
Yet
doing a side by side comparison of 20 or so versions its clear that
this 'Bible' stands quite alone its unnatural rendering of this
verse.
13.Paul
shook Judean dust from his feet! Lie in movie.
At
27:50 we are told the apostle Paul shook Judean dust from his feet!
Where is that from? There is no record of Paul ever shaking Judean
dust off his feet which is a sign of contempt. The only place I can
find a reference to Paul shaking dust off his feet is here:
Act
13:49
And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.
Act
13:50
But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the
chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and
Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.
Act
13:51
But they shook off the
dust of their feet against them,
and came unto Iconium.
Act
13:52
And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.
So
to whom was Paul’s disdain? The Jews at Pisidia which is a long way
from Judea, Once again the film takes artistic license with history
and adds things to the Biblical narrative that simply didn’t
happen. Of course if you want to exaggerate the difference between
Paul and the Jerusalem church such propaganda techniques prove to be
effective and emotive to those who don’t look for the truth
themselves.
14.Is
being worried for someone you care about an nervous breakdown?
At
43:10 into the movie we are told Paul being worried for the churches
was a nervous breakdown! Well I don’t know about you reader, but I
have been worried for others I care about in my time without having a
breakdown. For arguments sake lets take a look at the definition of
the term:
What
is a nervous breakdown? According to the oxford dictionary:
A period of mental illness resulting from severe depression, stress, or anxiety.
And
according to the free online dictionary:
nervous
breakdown
n
1. (Psychiatry) any mental illness not primarily of organic origin in which the patient ceases to function properly, often accompanied by severely impaired concentration, anxiety, insomnia, and
lack of self-esteem; used esp of episodes of depression
We
have here then is an accusation that Paul stopped functioning
normally on a mental level because he was worried for the churches.
What evidence have we for Paul’s worry?
Col
2:1
For I want you to know what a great conflict
I have for you and those at Laodicea, and for
as many as have not seen my face in the
flesh,
Php
1:30
having the same conflict
which you saw in me, and now hear to
be
in me.
One
cometary gives a a view of the Greek word here:
conflict]
Greek agôn,
a word suggestive of the athletic arena rather than the battle-field.
See above on “striving
together,”
Php_1:27. It recurs Col_2:1 (perhaps for the “wrestling’s” of
prayer); 1Th_2:2; 1Ti_6:12; 2Ti_4:7; Heb_12:1. Our
blessed Lord’s great “Wrestling” in Gethsemane, His sacred
“Agony,” is called by the kindred word agônia,
Luk_22:44.
Here
we see Paul was in great Striving of prayer then for the churches,
the word is similar to the word used for Jesus prayer in Gethsemane
Clearly in all these examples Paul was not having a breakdown but in
prayer for the churches as any christian should be. I believe from
this few verses in 2corinthians we can see clearly what Paul's worry
and stress was about and it was nothing to do with a nervous
breakdown:
2Co
11:24
Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes
save one.
2Co
11:25
Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered
shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
2Co
11:26
In
journeyings often, in
perils of waters, in
perils of robbers, in
perils by mine own
countrymen, in
perils by the heathen, in
perils in the city, in
perils in the wilderness, in
perils in the sea, in
perils among false brethren;
2Co
11:27
In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and
thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
2Co
11:28
Beside those things that are without, that
which cometh upon me daily, the care
of all the churches.
2Co
11:29
Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?
How
hard pushed was this man! And yet his care was not for himself, no it
was for the churches. How many could go through all that and not feel
sorry for themselves but instead care for others? Truly this man was
living a sacrificial life for the church not having a depressive,
self centered episode.
This
accusation of a nervous breakdown is just another accusing attack at
Paul’s character, there is no evidence of any nervous breakdown.
15.Did
Paul believe James and Peter were False apostles?
In
2nd
Corinthians we see Paul mention a group called false apostles in this
verse:
2Co
11:13
Anyway, they are no more than
false apostles and
dishonest workers. They only pretend to be apostles of Christ.
The
documentary attempts to link this statement to the real apostles in
Jerusalem at 51:35. is there any justification for this at all? Who
was Paul talking about here?
2Co
11:22
Are
they Hebrews? so am
I. Are they Israelites? so am
I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am
I.
2Co
11:23
Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am
more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons
more frequent, in deaths oft.
It
seems the same are mentioned earlier in chapter 10:
2Co
10:8
For though
I should boast somewhat more of our
authority,
which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your
destruction, I should not be ashamed:
2Co
10:9 That I may not seem as if I would
terrify you by letters.
2Co
10:10 For
his
letters, say
they,
are
weighty and powerful; but his
bodily presence is
weak, and his
speech contemptible.
So
these were Jews who were undermining the Apostle Paul’s authority,
using their Jewishnes as their authority. There is no mention here
however of keeping the Law or of Jerusalem church or even the
apostles.
Therefore
there is no reason at all to think Paul was here talking about
Judaizers or the apostles.
The
way the film relates this statement by Paul to the real apostles is
completely disingenuous and has no basis in the text or reality
whatever.
16.Evil
eye? More dodgy mistranslated scripture.
At
1:01:57 the documentary again links Paul’s talking about false
bretheren eroniosly with James and curiously adds an accusation that
doesn’t even exist in any of Paul’s writings The film flashes up
the accusation that the judaisers have an 'Evil eye' where does this
come from?
Pro
23:6
Eat thou not the bread of him
that hath
an
evil eye, neither
desire thou his dainty meats:
Pro
23:7
For as he thinketh in his heart, so is
he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is
not with thee.
Pro
28:22
He that hasteth to be rich hath
an
evil eye, and
considereth not that poverty shall come upon him.
Mar
7:22
Thefts,
covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an
evil eye,
blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
in
all these cases the text refers to a stingy/covetous man who values
money more than anything. Paul never
leveled this specific accusation at the apostles or anybody for that
matter. Though Paul had plenty to say about love of money as did all
the apostles especially the writer of the book of James!
17.Was
Paul rejected by Jerusalem church in the end? Did they reject his
offering?
One
key Point the film labors on is that Jerusalem church rejected Paul
and his offering for the poor. The Bible narrative of this supposed
happening is detailed in acts 21, is there any evidence James and the
elders rejected Paul’s gift for the poor church?
Act
21:17
And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received
us gladly.
Act
21:18
And the day
following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were
present.
Act
21:19
And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things
God had wrought among
the Gentiles by his ministry.
Act
21:20
And when
they heard it,
they glorified the Lord,
and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews
there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
is
being received gladly rejection? Not really. Was there any mention of
the offering Paul bought to Jerusalem that he had been collecting for
the poor? None, but why would there be? Clearly these men were not
lovers of money from a cursory reading of any of the writings of the
apostles. The most important issue here is the fact Paul needed to
prove he was not anti-Moses ( which he wasn’t as detailed in point
10 )
As
I mentioned in Point 3 Luke did mention Paul bough an offering:
Act
24:17
Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and
offerings.
There
is no reason to believe it was rejected, Paul already had a
reputation with the Jews there was always a risk factor for him being
in Jerusalem Especially considering the fact he led the fight against
those who wanted to teach Christians to be justified by the law. Paul
already knew he would be persecuted in Jerusalem, but in his love for
his bretheren would not put them at risk instead of himself in
providing for the needs of the church.
Any
conjecture his gift was rejected is then adding to the narrative
something that is not there. The scholars in the documentary seem to
dispise dispise Lukes narrative and consider it faulty or agenda
driven, then they add to and twist Lukes narrative to their own
agenda ie. Attacking Paul’s authority.
Who
do you trust more reader? Scholars who reject Luke and Paul.Who
misquote scripture and twist it? Or do you trust Luke and Paul who
most likely died for their faith in Jesus and spoke very harshly
against lying and money grabbing?
18.Was
James a 'Money launderer'?
As
the documentary continues so to the accusations and insinuations also
get harsher. At 1:06:00 the movie accuses James and the apostles of
money laundering! What is the definition of money laundering?:
money
laundering
noun
noun: money
laundering; noun: money-laundering
the
concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money, typically by
means of transfers involving foreign banks or legitimate businesses.
"he
was convicted of money laundering and tax evasion"
The
charge is that Paul’s money was dirty as it was from gentiles so it
couldn’t be accepted. So James apparently laundered the money when
he asked Paul to take the nazerite vow in acts 21 and pay the cost
for the other brothers detailed here:
Act
21:24
Them take, and purify thyself with them, and
be at charges with them,
that they may shave their
heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed
concerning thee, are nothing; but that
thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
This
accusation again has no basis whatever except for those who speculate
that James had something personal against Paul. Paul was to take this
Vow to show he was not against the law or Moses It would hopefully
silence opposition to Paul by showing Paul still had respect to the
teaching of Moses, so Paul being as a Jew to the Jews for the sake of
the gospel went through with it. James had already agreed with Peter
in acts 15 that men are justified by faith and not by keeping the
law.
This
accusation again adds something to the narrative by agenda driven
speculation, it has no basis in reality and is a direct attack on the
motives and honour of the apostles.
19.Did
Paul bring a gentile into the temple as the film claims?
At
1:08:00 the Documentary claims Paul bought a gentile into the temple,
something that was strictly forbidden. The movie is states this as a
fact, is it true? Lets take a look:
Act
21:28
Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all
men
every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and
further brought
Greeks also into the temple,
and hath polluted this holy place.
Act
21:29
(For they had seen before with him in
the city
Trophimus an Ephesian,
whom they
supposed
that Paul had brought into the temple.)
Act
21:30
And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they
took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors
were shut.
Act
21:31
And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief
captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.
So
what does the scripture say then? The Jews thought that Paul had
bought a Greek into the temple because they had seen him earlier in
the city. So Paul didn’t bring him into the temple then. This again
is simply a lie, Paul showed respect for the law but was wrongly
accused of breaking it by people jumping to conclusions that were not
true, much like the scholars in the documentary
20.Does
Paul 'destroy Judaism?'
As
mentioned in Point 10 Paul did not seek to destroy Moses but fulfil
through Christ. As Messiah said:
Mat
5:17
Think
not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfill
Mat
5:18
For
verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jesus
was not about destroying Moses and neither was Paul, they were about
fulfilling Moses by magnifying the law and making it a thing of the
heart. When Messiah came the religious had added to the law creating
caveats which circumvented the very spirit of the law, as detailed
here for example:
Mar
7:9
And he said unto them, Full
well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
tradition.
Mar
7:10 For
Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth
father or mother, let him die the death:
Mar
7:11 But
ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother,
It is
Corban,
that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by
me;
he shall be free.
Mar
7:12
And
ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Mar
7:13
Making
the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have
delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Here
Messiah makes it very clear, the pharisees used their tradition to
circumvent and make loopholes in the law, thus giving themselves
permission to sin against Gods Holy law.
Jesus
did not annul the law but magnified it in principle to be a thing of
the heart as here with the commandment against adultery:
Mat
5:27
Ye
have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
commit adultery:
Mat
5:28 But I
say unto you, That whosoever
looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her
already in his heart.
Jesus
Raised the standard showing that men needed to adhere to the law in
spirit not by letter, a standard which is humanly impossible to
fulfil
Fortunately
Jesus has taken our transgressions on himself at the cross he became
our passover, the very lamb of God all we need do is believe in him
and follow him and his blood is over our house(physical body). If we
love him we will keep his commandments, and Gods Holy spirit will be
in us leading us into all truth and cleansing us of our wicked ways:
Joh
14:15
If
ye love me, keep my commandments.
Joh
14:16 And
I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that
he may abide with you for ever;
Joh
14:17
Even
the
Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him
not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you,
and shall be in you.
Jesus
makes it clear if we love our neighbor and love God we fulfil the law
and the prophets:
Mat
22:36
Master, which is
the great
commandment in the law?
Mat
22:37
Jesus said unto him, Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat
22:38
This
is the first and great commandment.
Mat
22:39
And
the second
is
like
unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat
22:40
On
these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
The
Holy spirit himself turns us to obey the law of Love fulfilling the
law of Moses perfectly by faith through grace. Jesus gave us many
commands which reflect the law of Love but these he also tells us the
Holy spirit will remind us of at appropriate times.
Joh
14:26
But
the Comforter,
which
is
the
Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever
I have said unto you.
Paul
taught the same thing Jesus did, that Jesus fulfilled the law and
Judaism in the new covenant through his blood. That being baptized
into Jesus we are dead to this world and spiritually alive by the
Holy spirit given to us by Gods grace, which is received by faith.
21.Did
James and the Jerusalem church hate Paul and try to have him
killed?
Yet
another accusation made at James is that he betrayed Paul to be
killed without getting his hands dirty! The accusation is made at
1:12:30. This really is a new low, and again is pure conjecture
forgetting any moral scruples the apostle would have had!
What
was Paul doing when he was in the temple? The whole point was for
Paul to make a show of peace to those who loved Gods law. James plan
was for Paul to silence his critics NOT to get him killed!
Again
this claim is pure propaganda and a twisting of the narrative in
order to make it look like Paul and James were at odds.
22.Did
Paul not come back to Rome as a preacher as claimed in the film?
At
1:1744 We hear Paul came back to Rome but this time not as a preacher
but as the artwork portrays him a poor broken man. However if you
take a cursory look at the end of acts you can easily see this is yet
another complete lie:
Act
28:16
And when we
came to Rome,
the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard:
but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept
him.
Act
28:17
And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of
the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto
them, Men and
brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or
customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem
into the hands of the Romans.
Act
28:18
Who, when they had examined me, would have let me
go, because there was no cause of death in me.
Act
28:19
But when the Jews spake against it,
I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to
accuse my nation of.
Act
28:20
For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you,
and to speak with you:
because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
Act
28:21
And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judea
concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or
spake any harm of thee.
Act
28:22
But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning
this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
Act
28:23
And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into
his
lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God,
persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and
out
of
the prophets, from morning till evening.
Act
28:24
And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed
not.
Act
28:25
And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that
Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the
prophet unto our fathers,
Act
28:26
Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and
shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act
28:27
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull
of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see
with their
eyes, and hear with their
ears, and understand with their
heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Act
28:28
Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent
unto the Gentiles, and that
they will hear it.
Act
28:29
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great
reasoning among themselves.
Act
28:30
And
Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all
that came in unto him,
Act
28:31
Preaching
the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord
Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
Does
this sound to you like a sad end for Paul?! Did Paul not preach in
Rome? This is a triumphal ending for Paul! Again the way the film
portrays Paul is completely disingenuous and has no basis in reality
or scripture. Through nice paintings the film makes Paul out to be a
lonely man in despair Again nothing but speculation and propaganda
from the documentary
23.Did
Luke write nonsense?
At
1:20:45 into the documentary we are told Luke wrote nonsense about
Jerusalem church welcoming Paul! How does the commentator know this?
Truth is he was not there, this is said because it does not fit with
the agenda of the film. Well personally I would trust the writer of
Luke over a non-believing scholar any day. From the content of Luke’s
writing alone we can see he valued honesty and integrity. If Luke had
any agenda it was to write a true history of the church, not to
mention Luke was was there with Paul!
- The "we" passages: "Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; and 27:1-28:16. The author may, in these sections, be using a travel diary that he himself wrote at an earlier time, drawing on a diary written by a companion of Paul."1
Internal
evidence that the writer (Luke) was a companion of Paul
if
I asked you to pick from 2 people to tell you the truth about life in
north Korea for instance, who would you pick to tell you about it: a
man who lives and works there known for honesty, or a scholar from
America who studies north Korea from afar?
24.Faith
or works of the law some examples.
*Was
Abraham saved by keeping the law? No, Abraham didn’t have the law.
*Was
Rahab the prostitute saved by keeping the law? No, She didn’t have
the law.
*Was
Elijahs widow from Sidon saved by the law? No, she didn’t have the
law.
*Was
David saved from the death penalty for adultery and murder by the
law? No.
*When
God blessed Moses to lead was is because he kept the law? No, he
didn’t have the law.
*When
Enoch walked with God was it by keeping the law? No, he didn’t have
the law.
*When
Samson subdued the philistines was it by keeping the law? No, he
often broke the law.
What
then is it that made these people so blessed? FAITH, by faith they
stood, by faith the had strength and by faith they were justified.
25.Where
was God in this film? Where was the Holy spirit in this film?
Throughout
this whole documentary there is something I noticed to be all but
completely missing from the narrative. There is almost no mention of
God or of the Holy spirit. Save for one commentator God gets pretty
much no mention. Of course the film maker is obviously not a
believer, so this isn’t too surprising. To acknowledge God was
working through Luke or Paul would show them to be true. Watching a
promotional event by the film maker I remember him stating something
about keeping things down to earth. The problem with that is that God
is very much involved in the whole story, if you take God out, its no
wonder people end up speculating about motives and imagining all
kinds of strange things depending on their world view. Of course for
those who don’t believe in God money becomes the motive behind many
things and what was in history a gift for the poor given in pure
spiritual motives becomes a sordid tale of bribery.
26.Why
did Paul ask for prayer? A good example.
The
documentary makes much of the fact that Paul asked for prayer before
going to Jerusalem to bring his help to the saints. Documented here
in Romans:
Rom
15:30
Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and
for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your
prayers to God for me;
Rom
15:31
That
I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judea; and that
my service which I have
for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints;
Obviously
Paul thought his gift may not have been accepted but never do we read
in acts it was rejected. So why would Paul worry? The answer is
simple, James still kept the law, though not to be justified by it,
this meant Jews who found it hard to let go of the law felt
comfortable around him. However it also meant the Judaizers who were
trying to be justified by law and faith also found a good home with
him. Paul knew this, he had already had a run in with them in
Antioch:
Gal
2:12
For
before that certain
came from James,
he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew
and separated himself, fearing them which were
of the circumcision.
Gal
2:13 And the other Jews dissembled
likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with
their dissimulation.
Gal
2:14 But when I saw that they walked
not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter
before them
all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and
not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do
the Jews?
We
have already seen that James gave acceptance to the fact salvation is
by faith through grace in point 10.
Paul’s
worry about acceptance then was about Judaizers in the church and
unbelieving Jews outside the church, that’s why Paul asked for
prayer.
27.The
Gospel according to the book of James.
The
book of James is believed to be written by the very same James who
was leading Jerusalem church at the end of the book of acts. So it is
quite significant then when discussing James view on the Law and
salvation by faith.
The
text I would like to look at is from James chapter 2:
Jas
2:15
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jas
2:16 And one of you say unto them,
Depart in peace, be ye
warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things
which are needful to the body; what doth
it
profit?
Jas
2:17
Even so faith,
if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas
2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy
faith without thy works, and I
will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas
2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
also believe, and tremble.
Jas
2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas
2:21
Was not Abraham
our father justified by works,
when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (the
works of faith)
Jas
2:22
Seest thou how
faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas
2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he
was called the Friend of God.
Jas
2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith
only.
Jas
2:25
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot
justified by works,
when she had received the messengers, and had sent them
out another way? (the
works of faith)
Jas
2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith
without works is dead also.
Can
you see here what James is getting at, salvation is by faith alone,
BUT some in that day as they do today took that to mean simple belief
itself would save them and they could do whatever they like. Real
saving faith however always has its works, these however are NOT
the works of the LAW.
The works James are referring to are
the works of FAITH.
Thus here is Salvation by faith alone proved and shown by the works
of faith.
Neither Rahab or Abraham had the law of Moses that I believe is why
James used them as prime examples.
Yet
more concise proof then that James gospel was just the same as Paul’s
28.Conclusion.
So
to conclude then after going through the claims of a polite bribe one
by one its entirely clear that the claims about Paul’s gospel being
a different gospel are baseless. Furthermore it is clear that all of
the apostles believed salvation was by faith not by keeping the law.
I have also shown examples of those without the law who were saved by
faith in the old testament, demonstrating the law has saved not one
single soul but instead is Gods gift to humanity in defining what sin
is, but also a curse on us by showing us we cant live up to his
standards. I make this point as the underlying misunderstanding in
the film seems to be that the film maker thinks the gospel is only
for the Jews or perhaps that Jesus was not messiah? Whatever the case
I hope this document will help shed some light on the issues
discussed in the documentary from a believers perspective.