Monday 23 June 2014

Apostle Paul a polite bribe REFUTED

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...

  1. Jesus was a Palestinian.
  2. The book of Acts is an 'attempted history'.
  3. Acts was written decades after the things it details.
  4. Paul history is different to acts.
  5. Luke failed to mention Paul delivering Gold to the Judea church.
  6. Luke whitewashed and glossed over the hard truth.
  7. Paul used bribery to persuade the apostles to accept 'his gospel'.
  8. Paul’s gospel is somehow different than the gospel of the Jerusalem church.
  9. The apostles accepted Paul’s first offering detailed in acts 11:27-30 which was his first 'bribe' this gave Paul credibility.
  10. Paul is a 'self proclaimed apostle to the gentiles'
  11. There can only be 12 apostles because the new Jerusalem has 12 pillars.
  12. Barnabas didn’t agree with Paul’s mission to the gentiles.
  13. James was a follower of the Law and didn’t agree with Paul’s gospel.
  14. The apostles expected Paul to pay for support of his message.
  15. The apostles rejected 'Paul’s gospel' in the end.
  16. Paul died a lonely failure in prison with no friends.
  17. Paul being worried for the churches is the same as having a nervous breakdown.
  18. When Paul was talking about super apostles he was also referencing the real apostles.
  19. Jerusalem church were the same as the judaizers.
  20. Judaizers are followers of the evil eye???
  21. Paul considered himself the supreme apostle.
  22. The apostles were fine with money laundering.
  23. James did not accept any of Paul’s collection at all.
  24. Paul bought a gentile into the temple.
  25. Paul destroys Judaism.
  26. The Jewish church hated Paul.
  27. James may have tried to get Paul killed in the temple.
  28. To James the gospel to the gentiles was an experiment.
  29. Jesus was only for the Jews.
  30. Jesus gospel is salvation by law.
  31. Paul’s gospel is salvation by faith.
  32. Paul didn’t preach when he came back to Rome.
  33. Luke had an agenda to make it seem as all believers were getting along rather than telling the truth.
  34. Luke covered up tensions in hi writing.
  35. Luke wrote nonsense on occasion to cover up the truth.
  36. 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.

  1. 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?
  2. Appeal to numbers: most scholars believe X therefore X must be true numbers never lie? Do they?
  3. Ad ignorantiam: Because it isn’t written down it didn’t happen??
  4. Argument from final Consequences: X must have been betrayed by Y because Y knew where X was going?
  5. 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:

  1. Why Jesus was NOT a Palestinian
  2. Was the book of Acts really written decades later than the events it contains?
  3. Did Luke fail to mention Apostle Paul bringing the offering?
  4. Did Luke white wash facts for the appearance of unity in the church?
  5. Is it a sin to give and accept bribes, even polite ones?
  6. Did Paul bribe the Jerusalem church for legitimacy?
  7. Was Paul’s gospel different to the Gospel of Jerusalem church?
  8. Why were there 13 apostles? Was Paul a self proclaimed apostle to the gentiles?
  9. Did Barnabas disagree with Paul over ministering to the gentiles.
  10. Did James agree with Paul’s gospel?
  11. Would Jesus support Paul’s gospel to the gentiles? Or was it only for Jews??
  12. Galatians 2:9 scripture misquoted in the movie.
  13. Paul shook Judean dust from his feet! Lie in movie.
  14. Is being worried for someone you care about an nervous breakdown?
  15. Did Paul believe James and Peter were False apostles?
  16. Evil eye? More dodgy mistranslated scripture.
  17. Was Paul rejected by Jerusalem church in the end? Did they reject his offering?
  18. Was James a 'Money launderer'?
  19. Did Paul bring a gentile into the temple as the film claims?
  20. Does Paul 'destroy Judaism?'
  21. Did James and the Jerusalem church hate Paul and try to have him killed?
  22. Did Paul not come back to Rome as a preacher as claimed in the film?
  23. Did Luke write nonsense?
  24. Faith or works of the law some examples.
  25. Where was God in this film? Where was the Holy spirit in this film?
  26. Why did Paul ask for prayer? A good example.
  27. The Gospel according to the book of James.
  28. Conclusion.


  1. 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.


  1. 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.

  1. Reasons for an early date, before A.D. 70 and possibly no later than A.D. 62.
    1. Internal evidence that the writer was a companion of Paul
      1. The "we" passages:  "Acts 16:10-1720:5-1521:1-18; 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
    2. A.D. 70. No mention of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (Luke 21:20).
      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.
      2. 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?
    3. A.D. 64. No mention of the horrendous persecution of Nero in A.D. 64.
      1. 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.
      2. 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?
    4. A.D. 64. No Roman persecution of the Church mentioned.
      1. "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
    5. A.D. 62.  No mention of the death of the apostle Paul.
      1. 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?
      2. "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
    6. A.D. 62.  No mention of the death of the apostle James
      1. 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 7:55-6012:2)? 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

  1. Acts shows influence of Josephus within its text which means it was written in the 90's since that is when Josephus wrote.
    1. But, it could be that Josephus, who published his work Antiquities in A.D. 93, used Luke as a reference.
    2. It is possible that both Josephus and Luke used a common source.
    3. 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
  2. Luke used the Gospel of Mark which is dated around A.D. 60 to 65.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
  3. Modern Scholars affirm a date of authorship after A.D. 70--some even after A.D. 100.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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!

      Internal evidence that the writer (Luke) was a companion of Paul
      1. The "we" passages:  "Acts 16:10-1720:5-1521:1-18; 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

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.

42 comments:

  1. Keithio,

    Thanks for taking the time to respond to the film, though I must remind you that "many words does not a good argument make." Also, when you start your writing by assigning motive or accusing the author/creator ("lies") who simply holds another point of view, you lose credibility as to your own objectivity or trustworthiness. If you are not comfortable (and it is clear you are not) asking tough questions of the bible, then your internal bias will prevent you from discovering anything new, especially some thing that might challenge traditional assumptions.

    Lastly, I have a book coming out (http://pressreleases.religionnews.com/2014/05/22/wipf-stock-publishers-publish-apostle-paul-polite-bribe-based-controversial-film/) this summer that explores all the research and arguments behind the film's narrative, and would be best suited to counter some of the arguments you have made in the unnecessarily lengthy response. We can simply carve off most of the questionable points, which I have debated in many places on line already, and conclude that there are some undeniable facts that make the film a worthy exploration, and not for the purposes of denying faith or inspiration, but fleshing out the human factors in the early church.

    1. Paul was not one of the original 12 apostles, but claimed he was after the fact because Jesus came to him in a vision (the description of which can be debated between Acts and Galatians), and this fact did not always sit well with the original 12.

    2. Paul's idea of the gospel (he refers to gospel of his peers as "another gospel") was never full embraced by his Jesus's original Apostles, and as part of their agreement (Acts 15/Gal 2:10) a collection became instrumental to unify the two factions of the early movement.

    3. Late in Paul's life (58AD?) Paul wants to return the collection, but is not sure if it will be accepted or whether he will even make it out alive, after delivering (Rom 15:30-31), but in spite of the danger (Agabus warns him in Acts), Paul enters the Temple and his almost killed.

    Acts does parallel the story from Paul's letters, but leaves out the most important point of all, that Paul was coming to deliver the promised collection? And yes, strangely, the "offering" does show up in Acts 24, BUT, an important point you missed is that Felix confesses that he continues to invite Paul in the room, stalling his sentence, with the hopes that the Apostle would "offer him a bribe." The core of the story does not require the broader points of the accusations, it is a logical sequence that suspiciously leaves out the money at the center. A fact that is common knowledge to most religious or bible studies programs. All I did was collect the historical facts into a sequence.

    If you are a person of Faith (I'd like to think I am too) I think it is a more important question to ask yourself, why would it be such a scary or threatening prospect that the writers of the bible were men, and therefore capable of using money to be persuasive, fighting over ethnicity, or over their honor? Why do you need a bible that is inerrant or above investigation, where your faculties of reason are contorted to maintain a theology. I don't think is liberty at all, or an mode of investigation that would allow anyone to discover truth.

    RobO

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RobOFirst of all i would point out i know many words dont make truth however since some of the arguments are complex it was required that i go through scripture and show them false or at least to be nothing more than conjecture.second There really is nothing wrong with calling out lies when lies are told, many of the things your film states as fact are quite simply not proven to be fact and some are just outright wrong. You say i lose crediblity by accusing you of lies, but you yourself have accused the very apostles of Jesus christ. you have accised 5hem of taaking and recieving bribes, betrayel whitewashing and dishonesty. You have even accused luke of writting nonsence. If you are so happy to accuse the very pillars of Gods Holy church and his Word please dont be offended at being accused yourself. I am very happy with asking tough questions about the bible and answering them. The things you claim are human factors are but speculation with negative spin, while non believing scholars may agree with you, there is no hard evidence to prove any of them. Now about your points...1: Paul nowhere ever claimed to be one of the 12 apostles, he did though call himself the least of all the apostles in 1corinthians 15:92. Acts 15 and 2peter 3:15-16 prove that jerusalem church believed the same gospel of salvation by faith and approved of Paul.3. The collection was not the most important point, the mostimportant point was that Paul was being accused of opposing moses, somthing that was not true. Therefore Pual took a vow to show he respected moses and the law though hew saw it as fufilled. The mention of felix hoping for a bribe has nothing to do with Pauls collection. Felix just wanted an excuse to get rid of Paul who was convicting his concience. The money was never the center of the story instead the center was the story of the first preachers of the Gospel by the Power of the Holy spirit.I am not afraid of your film or argueing any and all points that attack the inerrancy of Gods word. What i am afraid of is you causing the little ones of Jesus to stumble Mathew 18:6. That os why i have taken great time to refute this film. While i do welcome questioning the Bible i dont welcome speculation that attacks the unity of Gods apostles and his word stated as fact.Keith

      Delete
    2. Apostle Paul: A Polite Bribe
      A Dangerous Film for Whom?
      PART 1

      KEITHIO

      RobO, First of all i would point out i know many words dont make truth however since some of the arguments are complex it was required that i go through scripture and show them false or at least to be nothing more than conjecture.

      ROBO

      Yet, your tendency is not to work through the logical arguments but to compound evidence based on a fundamentalist view of scripture. In other words, Paul cannot disagree with Luke, because the bible is inerrant - a circular argument. For a non fundamentalist, if Paul does not agree with Luke, we do not need to contort the facts into a higher theology (God’s purpose) as if we need to use arguments from theology to set history straight. Rather the opposite, we follow the facts of historical investigation so we can find the evidence on the side of the bible narrative or not. The process is not without human subjectivity, but we do not block critical reason because it is subjective.

      KEITHIO

      Second There really is nothing wrong with calling out lies when lies are told, many of the things your film states as fact are quite simply not proven to be fact and some are just outright wrong.

      ROBO

      You’re calling researched opinions – other than your own – “lies.” As to proven to be fact, even a fundamentalist would have a much more difficult time proving the notion of “inerrancy” or “God’s will to create a Canon” (not in the bible) than a scholar would merely weighing the evidence of scripture and biblical history and trying to make sense of the story, even for edification.

      KEITHIO

      You say i lose crediblity by accusing you of lies, but you yourself have accused the very apostles of Jesus christ. you have accised 5hem of taaking and recieving bribes, betrayel whitewashing and dishonesty.

      ROBO

      You’re in an argument loop again. Is the investigation of the bible on narrative or historical terms an accusation? Why so suspicious? Even putting aside the Old testament, are you actually arguing that the bible is not filled with stories of treachery, money, white washing, and dishonesty. Isn’t the message of Jesus that God came for sinners? Didn’t Peter pull a sword on the Roman Guard and betray Jesus 3 times? Wasn’t Matthew a tax collector? Wasn’t Judas bribed by the authorities? Didn’t Agabus warn Paul that he would be killed in Jerusalem? Wasn’t the women who spoke to Jesus dishonest about her husbands? Not only do I grasp how the human condition is present in scripture, but think it would be quite impossible to portray the New testament without it.

      Delete
    3. Apostle Paul: A Polite Bribe
      A Dangerous Film for Whom?
      PART 2


      KEITHIO

      You have even accused luke of writting nonsence. If you are so happy to accuse the very pillars of Gods Holy church and his Word please dont be offended at being accused yourself.

      ROBO

      Never does the film or book “accused luke of writing nonsense.” And if we allow for the fact that Paul and Luke are writing in different time periods and from different sources, to emphasize their stories, why not mention the final trip to Jerusalem with the collection? It’s the only exception in a logical sequence of narrative events. The absence of the collection in Luke is curious at best and suspicious at worst? We know from the book of Romans it is one of Paul’s primary purposes for his trip to Jerusalem. The pillars of God’s Holy church are in conflict with one another not because a filmmaker 2000 years later says its so, but because it is in the texts. Interpreting the meaning or the degree of the conflict, yes, but not that any conflict existed.

      KEITHIO


      I am very happy with asking tough questions about the bible and answering them. The things you claim are human factors are but speculation with negative spin, while non believing scholars may agree with you, there is no hard evidence to prove any of them.

      ROBO

      With a tough questioning approach what I have expressed in the book and film would not only be common knowledge but common sense. How do you describe any religious life without the human factors? Is it truly possibly to separate money from religion, or ethnic conflict? Is it negative to try to understand these factors in concert with how believers come to understand divine revelation? Do we lose our free wills and subjective minds merely because we believe? I have a film and a book with over a list of 300 authors and 400 footnotes, combined with 50 hours of interviews, that says there is plenty of hard evidence for these findings, and the influence of the collection on Paul’s mission.

      KEITHIO


      Now about your points...1: Paul nowhere ever claimed to be one of the 12 apostles, he did though call himself the least of all the apostles in 1corinthians 15:92.

      ROBO

      So? My point is he was NOT one of the twelve. Many scholars will also argue that Paul in I Corithians 15 is trying to attach himself to the other 12 to show he is part of an apostolic legacy. The 12 also do NOT include James or Peter who Jesus also appeared to? Does that mean we have 14 or 15 Apostles, and after Judas commits suicide and is replaced by a new apostle in Acts (by drawing sticks) who is the real 12? This is why it is reasonable that 12 is symbolic to match the 12 tribes or some other significance of the number 12.






      Delete
    4. Apostle Paul: A Polite Bribe
      A Dangerous Film for Whom?
      PART 3

      KEITHIO


      Acts 15 and 2peter 3:15-16 prove that jerusalem church believed the same gospel of salvation by faith and approved of Paul.

      ROBO

      As for Acts 15, the fact that Luke says this, does not mean it makes sense according to what Paul says. They describe very different experiences of the early Church most likely because they are living in different times? One before the Fall of Jerusalem and one after the Fall. Did you ever consider that fact that Luke was writing scripture for a Roman Patron? He does not say I am writing this for the Lord, but for “Theophilus.” Even if you believe Luke was divinely inspired, does that mean he is corrupt because he is commissioned to write a history? Does his human subjectivities (genre, writing styles, distinctions with Paul, etc) make him corrupt or not capable of inspiration? This view is simply too narrow.

      We don’t need to venture off into the later epistles to make this point, but being you mentioned 1 Peter, I would respond in saying you did not read far enough. Many scholars point out that Peter here, even in this late period, still has to explain Paul, or defend (“hard to understand”) Paul to his fellow Christians.

      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.”
      The author is making two points, a) that some of Paul’s writings are “hard to understand” AND b) some can distort this fact. But b does not cancel out Peter’s point in a, that Paul is still hard to understand.

      KEITHIO


      3. The collection was not the most important point, the most important point was that Paul was being accused of opposing moses, somthing that was not true.

      ROBO

      How can you say that Paul was not opposing Moses? It was the single cause of almost all of his strife. His vision and revelation of Jesus told him that a new epoch had come – no longer “Jew or Greek,” and therefore the Laws “were no longer written on stones” but in men’s hearts. This is why Paul was not accepted by his brethren and hated by non Christian Jews and rightfully so. He was asking them to trust his vision over the thousands of years of tradition and God’s revelation. And Jesus himself, though he spoke to the rigidity of the law (good deeds on the Sabbath), never said he had come to abolish it but to fulfill its every word. Not the same message as Paul.

      KEITHIO

      Therefore Pual took a vow to show he respected moses and the law though hew saw it as fufilled.

      ROBO

      You raise more questions for the A Polite Bribe perspective with every statement you write. Why would James ask Paul to do this, but to make him acceptable to the Jewish Christians who opposed him (according to Paul false apostles)? If there was no problems why have him go through a purification ritual at all? Why not accept the money, embrace Paul, and welcome him into to Temple fellowship? And further, if Paul and James hold to the same beliefs about Jesus’ new gospel message, how is it that James can fellowship with the Jews in Jerusalem and Paul is an archenemy when he arrives?

      Delete
    5. Apostle Paul: A Polite Bribe
      A Dangerous Film for Whom?
      PART 4

      KEITHIO

      The mention of felix hoping for a bribe has nothing to do with Pauls collection. Felix just wanted an excuse to get rid of Paul who was convicting his concience. The money was never the center of the story instead the center was the story of the first preachers of the Gospel by the Power of the Holy spirit.

      ROBO

      It speaks quite directly to the bribe because it shows that Felix has an expectation that by stalling the judgment on Paul he might receive money. If Paul is only dealing with a collection for the poor and a man of poverty himself, where would this notion in Felix’s mind come from? It only makes sense that Paul was a man of some means. In addition earlier in Acts 24, Paul defends himself by saying he came to bring an “offering” to his people, the very story event missing 3 chapters earlier?

      KEITHIO

      I am not afraid of your film or argueing any and all points that attack the inerrancy of Gods word. What i am afraid of is you causing the little ones of Jesus to stumble Mathew 18:6. That os why i have taken great time to refute this film.

      ROBO

      I understand the sentiment behind this point but you are misrepresenting what it means to be a “babe” or make the babes stumble. As Paul would say he doesn’t want believers to remain “on the milk” but to be able to grow to digest meat. And as for babes and knowledge Jesus said "Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore as wise as serpents and harmless as doves." In other words being a faithful babe is a Christian’s spirit in dealing with their fellow man or trusting God but not toward knowledge itself? Christian faith is hinged on the historical events of Jesus’ life and therefore the understanding of the story itself is inextricable to know the substance of belief, no?

      KEITHIO

      While i do welcome questioning the Bible i dont welcome speculation that attacks the unity of Gods apostles and his word stated as fact.

      ROBO

      In 2 Corinthians, certainly the attackers of Paul are Jewish Christian Apostles (God’s Apostles) and Paul refers to them as “Messengers of Satan. In Philippians he refers to them as “Dogs and Mutilators of the Flesh, and in Galatians where Jesus’ brother James is intervening in Paul’s mission, there is no denying it. Just for a quick overview with Paul and how he got along with the other Apostles. He had a violent confrontation with Peter. Was left by Barnabas. He fired Mark. He mocked James, Peter, and John (supposed pillars). In the end no one came to his aid in Caesarea. Paul tells us himself in 2 Corinthians that he was persecuted by his brothers and it is inferred that he is accused of buying his authority with the collection. We can use the phrase “unity of God’s apostles” but this is certainly not what we find in Paul’s descriptions, which is why Luke’s narrative is questioned by scholars.

      In summary, what’s in question here is not whether the basis for the Apostle Paul” A Polite Bribe narrative has evidence, but what view (presuppositions) you bring to the investigation. If there is s suspicion to the use of critical reason to examine scripture, there will be nothing discovered or learned, but only the theological hope of faith working on sustaining a faith, without the free use of enquiry. I don’t think any thinking believer or non-believer should subscribe to that idea.


      Delete
    6. ROBO

      Yet, your tendency is not to work through the logical arguments but to compound evidence based on a fundamentalist view of scripture. In other words, Paul cannot disagree with Luke, because the bible is inerrant - a circular argument. For a non fundamentalist, if Paul does not agree with Luke, we do not need to contort the facts into a higher theology (God’s purpose) as if we need to use arguments from theology to set history straight. Rather the opposite, we follow the facts of historical investigation so we can find the evidence on the side of the bible narrative or not. The process is not without human subjectivity, but we do not block critical reason because it is subjective.

      To RobO,

      first i would like to say im glad you are willing to reply in detail, however i was unhappy to see my comments on youtube being deleted, i have a right to post my opinion and people have a right to consider my counter arguments. I can see for a non fundamentalist its easy to start picking holes in every little discrepancy, but as a total believer in Gods word i see my arguments as no less valid than yours, we are using the same sorce material. Its simple to see the real problem here is one of spin and conjecture. You come at the scriptures believing money is a central issue, i believe in good faith in the character of the apostles and the fact they were honest men concerned more about truth and honour.There is nothing illogical about the fundamentalist view, the narrative of acts is clearly the next logical step after the ministry of Jesus. like its entirely logical to have 12 main apostles for the 12 tribes and 1 main apostle to the gentiles Paul. The only reason you cant see my logic is because you are taking the facts and with an entirely different view and without faith in Gods ability to have created inerrant scripture.

      Delete
    7. ROBO

      You’re calling researched opinions – other than your own – “lies.” As to proven to be fact, even a fundamentalist would have a much more difficult time proving the notion of “inerrancy” or “God’s will to create a Canon” (not in the bible) than a scholar would merely weighing the evidence of scripture and biblical history and trying to make sense of the story, even for edification.

      KEITH

      Researched opinion isn't lies until its stated as fact, even very weak arguments if they are stated as being just opinions are fine, its only when you state them as if they are facts they become lies. Really im not too impressed with research by itself, often research is only as good as its financial backers, or the bias of the researcher.

      Some of the weak opinions or lies from the film:

      *Jesus the palastinian Jew-- Jesus never was and never will be palastinian

      * Acts written around 90 AD--Many good reasons given in my blog for and early date, just weak conjecture again NOT fact.

      * James rejected Paul-- Speculation stated as fact again.

      * Luke failed to mention collection-- outright lie, Luke did mention the collection.

      * Paul calls Jerusalem apostles false apostle-- simply not true, very weak conjecture.

      * Paul accuses Judaizers of having an evil eye-- complete lie.

      and thats just a sample. if i stated you were a muslim or Jew because of your opinions about Paul i would be telling a lie, since it would be my own opinion based on weak evidence. While it may be true, it would be dishonest of me to state it as a fact, especially if the evidence is weak.

      Delete
    8. KEITHIO

      You say i lose crediblity by accusing you of lies, but you yourself have accused the very apostles of Jesus christ. you have accised 5hem of taaking and recieving bribes, betrayel whitewashing and dishonesty.

      ROBO

      You’re in an argument loop again. Is the investigation of the bible on narrative or historical terms an accusation? Why so suspicious? Even putting aside the Old testament, are you actually arguing that the bible is not filled with stories of treachery, money, white washing, and dishonesty. Isn’t the message of Jesus that God came for sinners? Didn’t Peter pull a sword on the Roman Guard and betray Jesus 3 times? Wasn’t Matthew a tax collector? Wasn’t Judas bribed by the authorities? Didn’t Agabus warn Paul that he would be killed in Jerusalem? Wasn’t the women who spoke to Jesus dishonest about her husbands? Not only do I grasp how the human condition is present in scripture, but think it would be quite impossible to portray the New testament without it.

      KEITH

      This comes down to the fact of whether you believe the Apostles were honest. Though you are correct, the scripture is filled with stories of all kinds of sins, i personally trust the apostles to have told the truth scrupulously, especially since they left the embarrassing bits in. Furthermore by faith i believe that the men who wrote the Bible did so by the inspiration of the Holy spirit. Its clear you don't share that faith, what i don't like to see is scriptures being twisted and conjecture stated as fact. Something it seems you have to do to tear apart Paul and the jerusalem church.

      Delete

    9. ROBO

      Never does the film or book “accused luke of writing nonsense.” And if we allow for the fact that Paul and Luke are writing in different time periods and from different sources, to emphasize their stories, why not mention the final trip to Jerusalem with the collection? It’s the only exception in a logical sequence of narrative events. The absence of the collection in Luke is curious at best and suspicious at worst? We know from the book of Romans it is one of Paul’s primary purposes for his trip to Jerusalem. The pillars of God’s Holy church are in conflict with one another not because a filmmaker 2000 years later says its so, but because it is in the texts. Interpreting the meaning or the degree of the conflict, yes, but not that any conflict existed.

      KEITH

      The point at which it is stated that Luke wrote nonsense is at 1:20:45 in the movie, check it yourself, its there in the movie plain as day.

      Again i don't necessarily agree even that Paul's epistles and Acts were written at different time periods, there is good evidence (internal) that Luke was there with Paul himself. There is also good evidence for an early date for acts, stated in the Blog.

      Again though the collection was important, i can see what was much more important was Paul being as a Jew to the Jews and showing respect to moses by taking the vow. The money is a far less important factor here, Jesus clearly preached against love of money, there is no reason for it to be central in the story. I again disagree that the pillars were in conflict, the real conflict was with those who were called the judaizers and false brethren, Jerusalem council ended any conflict between the apostles on the matter of keeping the law.

      Delete
    10. KEITHIO


      I am very happy with asking tough questions about the bible and answering them. The things you claim are human factors are but speculation with negative spin, while non believing scholars may agree with you, there is no hard evidence to prove any of them.

      ROBO

      With a tough questioning approach what I have expressed in the book and film would not only be common knowledge but common sense. How do you describe any religious life without the human factors? Is it truly possibly to separate money from religion, or ethnic conflict? Is it negative to try to understand these factors in concert with how believers come to understand divine revelation? Do we lose our free wills and subjective minds merely because we believe? I have a film and a book with over a list of 300 authors and 400 footnotes, combined with 50 hours of interviews, that says there is plenty of hard evidence for these findings, and the influence of the collection on Paul’s mission.

      KEITH

      Appeal to numbers: most scholars believe X therefore X must be true numbers never lie? Do they?

      im sorry but your argument by numbers means nothing to me, millions of people believe in the Pope as having supreme authority, millions believe in buddha, millions believe in islam. certainly though im sure they are not all true, just because millions believe it, no matter how clever they think they are.

      Again your speculation is neither common knowledge or common sense, the negative spin i talk of is when you see corruption where there is none based on weak textual critisism and the assumption the apostles were motivated by cash.

      The whole message of the new testament is completely against materialism and love of money. its like accusing Gandhi of murder because one of his mates died suspiciously, when Gandhi was a passionate pacifist. This is the opposite to common sense.

      Delete
    11. KEITHIO


      Now about your points...1: Paul nowhere ever claimed to be one of the 12 apostles, he did though call himself the least of all the apostles in 1corinthians 15:92.

      ROBO

      So? My point is he was NOT one of the twelve. Many scholars will also argue that Paul in I Corithians 15 is trying to attach himself to the other 12 to show he is part of an apostolic legacy. The 12 also do NOT include James or Peter who Jesus also appeared to? Does that mean we have 14 or 15 Apostles, and after Judas commits suicide and is replaced by a new apostle in Acts (by drawing sticks) who is the real 12? This is why it is reasonable that 12 is symbolic to match the 12 tribes or some other significance of the number 12.

      KEITH

      12 is significant, its the 12 tribes and 12 apostles(sent ones) also the 12 pillars of the new jerusalem. Here is where the 12 are listed:

      Matthew 10:1-4:
      1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
      2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
      3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
      4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

      We know also that later Mathias replaced Judas. And yes we do have more than 12 even barnabas is referred to as an apostle at one point:

      Yes, Paul was an apostle, but were there only the twelve, or were there other apostles??
      Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

      Showing that Barnabas was also an apostle....


      1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


      Showing that many more apostles were and would be called....

      The 12 are a foundation built on the foundation of the 12 tribes upon which the church is built and continues to be built to this day. Apostles are still around today, just not the foundational ones. Also there are many fakes of course just as we were told there would be.

      Delete
    12. KEITHIO


      Acts 15 and 2peter 3:15-16 prove that jerusalem church believed the same gospel of salvation by faith and approved of Paul.

      ROBO

      As for Acts 15, the fact that Luke says this, does not mean it makes sense according to what Paul says. They describe very different experiences of the early Church most likely because they are living in different times? One before the Fall of Jerusalem and one after the Fall. Did you ever consider that fact that Luke was writing scripture for a Roman Patron? He does not say I am writing this for the Lord, but for “Theophilus.” Even if you believe Luke was divinely inspired, does that mean he is corrupt because he is commissioned to write a history? Does his human subjectivities (genre, writing styles, distinctions with Paul, etc) make him corrupt or not capable of inspiration? This view is simply too narrow.

      We don’t need to venture off into the later epistles to make this point, but being you mentioned 1 Peter, I would respond in saying you did not read far enough. Many scholars point out that Peter here, even in this late period, still has to explain Paul, or defend (“hard to understand”) Paul to his fellow Christians.

      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.”
      The author is making two points, a) that some of Paul’s writings are “hard to understand” AND b) some can distort this fact. But b does not cancel out Peter’s point in a, that Paul is still hard to understand.

      KEITH

      Just because you get 2 different parts of the story from 2 different writtings it does not mean they have to conflict or reffer to somthing different. Both Pauls and Lukes account can sit nicely together each emphasizing a different aspect.

      I do consider Luke to be inspired, the fact he was writing to a roman is no problem. Some of the epistles were also written to specific people, That does not detract that the Holy spirit had a greater purpose for them.

      As for 2Peter it is clear he considers Paul to be a beloved brother and his teachings to be correct though difficult for some. Just infact as some of the old testament is difficult for some too. Still because they are difficult that does not mean you can mess around with them or use them to attack the Gospel as some did, and are still doing to thier own destruction.

      Here then is a clear warning at the end of a chapter of warnings, that some will use Paul's writings to attack Gods word because some of his writing is difficult. This warning by the way is still very much in effect...

      Delete
    13. KEITHIO


      3. The collection was not the most important point, the most important point was that Paul was being accused of opposing moses, somthing that was not true.

      ROBO

      How can you say that Paul was not opposing Moses? It was the single cause of almost all of his strife. His vision and revelation of Jesus told him that a new epoch had come – no longer “Jew or Greek,” and therefore the Laws “were no longer written on stones” but in men’s hearts. This is why Paul was not accepted by his brethren and hated by non Christian Jews and rightfully so. He was asking them to trust his vision over the thousands of years of tradition and God’s revelation. And Jesus himself, though he spoke to the rigidity of the law (good deeds on the Sabbath), never said he had come to abolish it but to fulfill its every word. Not the same message as Paul.

      KEITH

      Here is the real center to what is behind your film in my opinion, in Jesus own Gospel though taught in parables he shows (as i demostrated in my blog) because the olive tree had no fruit, the King would go to the high ways and byways to find good and bad. He said go into the whole earth in the great commision! he said that salvation was to those who 'Believe' all through the gospel of John. Pauls Gospel was Just the same as Jesus Gospel, the law and traditions never saved anybody, rather it was faith and the works of faith as James speaks so clearly in his book.

      Again if you take the time to read my blog i demonstrated this very simply, Abraham himself was a gentile. Who do you think Ruth and Rebbeca are a prophecy of? they are a picture of the church, gentile brides given pride of place on Gods holy nation.

      Psa. 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

      note all kindreds...

      Delete
    14. Further Paul as i demonstrated in my Blog if you read it, preached from moses as taugh the fufilment of the law of moses just as in the time he spoke of not muzzling the ox while he treads the grain. he takes this law and expands it as a spiritual principle, thus fufiling it. Just as messiah expanded the law as a principle too.

      let me ask you, those jews who painted the lambs blood over the door of thier house. were thier first born saved by thier rightoesness? or was it by being good and keeping the law?

      Jesus is our passover, his blood is over us too, not by keeping the law but by faith as Jesus commanded. And that blood is not over a door but over our head, thats why he was crucified over a skull.

      Delete
    15. KEITHIO

      Therefore Pual took a vow to show he respected moses and the law though hew saw it as fufilled.

      ROBO

      You raise more questions for the A Polite Bribe perspective with every statement you write. Why would James ask Paul to do this, but to make him acceptable to the Jewish Christians who opposed him (according to Paul false apostles)? If there was no problems why have him go through a purification ritual at all? Why not accept the money, embrace Paul, and welcome him into to Temple fellowship? And further, if Paul and James hold to the same beliefs about Jesus’ new gospel message, how is it that James can fellowship with the Jews in Jerusalem and Paul is an archenemy when he arrives?

      KEITH

      The principle you need to understand is here:

      Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
      Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
      Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
      Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
      Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
      Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
      Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
      Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

      The point is some cant let go of tradition or the law, and as long as those things are not sinful they are free in the law of liberty to practice. The problem is when a person seeks to be justified by keeping a law, then they are no longer justified by faith and they add to the finished work of messiah who has atoned for us all by his own blood.

      Why would James ask this of Paul then? for the weak in faith christians who found it hard to let go of the Law, to show them Paul had nothing against moses, and he didn't, he went through with it.

      James was easy company for the new Jewish converts saved by faith but also for the judaisers as james for the sake of the gospel was keeping the law. Paul however exposed the judaisers, by his preaching to the gentiles he showed that keeping the law was not necessary for salvation, but faith in the one God had sent was the central issue, Just as Jesus said, it he who believes who is saved.

      Can you imagine trying to run the Jewish church in Jerusalem for new jewish believers and not keeping the law? it would have pushed people away and given the judaizers and excuse to physically attack the church. No, James had liberty to keep the law and did so for the sake of the Gospel.

      Paul was no enemy when he arrived by the way, he was rather the victim of rumours spread by those who wanted to bring believers back under the law, the same people spoken of in 2peter who couldn't understand Paul and attacked his teachings to their own destruction.

      Delete
    16. KEITHIO

      The mention of felix hoping for a bribe has nothing to do with Pauls collection. Felix just wanted an excuse to get rid of Paul who was convicting his concience. The money was never the center of the story instead the center was the story of the first preachers of the Gospel by the Power of the Holy spirit.

      ROBO

      It speaks quite directly to the bribe because it shows that Felix has an expectation that by stalling the judgment on Paul he might receive money. If Paul is only dealing with a collection for the poor and a man of poverty himself, where would this notion in Felix’s mind come from? It only makes sense that Paul was a man of some means. In addition earlier in Acts 24, Paul defends himself by saying he came to bring an “offering” to his people, the very story event missing 3 chapters earlier?

      KEITH

      The bribe Felix was hoping for was nothing to do with the church. Paul was a man of some means obviosly, its not to surprising that felix would have been given a heads up that Paul was quite an important and well funded person. As for the mention of the collection, sure Luke could have mentioned the money earlier but there is no reason he should have to, simply because its mentioned as a side issue does not mean it was not accepted or didn't happen, it just means it was or became a side issue to the bigger more important things going on at the time.

      Delete
    17. KEITHIO

      I am not afraid of your film or argueing any and all points that attack the inerrancy of Gods word. What i am afraid of is you causing the little ones of Jesus to stumble Mathew 18:6. That os why i have taken great time to refute this film.

      ROBO

      I understand the sentiment behind this point but you are misrepresenting what it means to be a “babe” or make the babes stumble. As Paul would say he doesn’t want believers to remain “on the milk” but to be able to grow to digest meat. And as for babes and knowledge Jesus said "Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore as wise as serpents and harmless as doves." In other words being a faithful babe is a Christian’s spirit in dealing with their fellow man or trusting God but not toward knowledge itself? Christian faith is hinged on the historical events of Jesus’ life and therefore the understanding of the story itself is inextricable to know the substance of belief, no?

      KEITH

      The little ones in this verse are those who humble themselves as a child and believe in Jesus. If by your book and/or movie you cause them to stumble into sin or doubt their savior and stumble back into false religion, well its extremely serious for you and for them. Eternal souls are at steak here, and i'm serious about protecting the fact of the Holy faith delivered to the saints and those new believers especially who don't have the knowledge of the scriptures to defend the new testament. We are not to remain babes as to knowledge, but to those who are babes as to knowledge your film and book will be a stumbling block as it takes away any confidence in Paul then luke and then finally the apostles as honest men led by God. its fine for you to have your opinions and speculations, but please dont speak of them as fact if they are not proven to be facts.

      Delete
    18. ROBO

      In 2 Corinthians, certainly the attackers of Paul are Jewish Christian Apostles (God’s Apostles) and Paul refers to them as “Messengers of Satan. In Philippians he refers to them as “Dogs and Mutilators of the Flesh, and in Galatians where Jesus’ brother James is intervening in Paul’s mission, there is no denying it. Just for a quick overview with Paul and how he got along with the other Apostles. He had a violent confrontation with Peter. Was left by Barnabas. He fired Mark. He mocked James, Peter, and John (supposed pillars). In the end no one came to his aid in Caesarea. Paul tells us himself in 2 Corinthians that he was persecuted by his brothers and it is inferred that he is accused of buying his authority with the collection. We can use the phrase “unity of God’s apostles” but this is certainly not what we find in Paul’s descriptions, which is why Luke’s narrative is questioned by scholars.

      KEITH

      all these points you mention i have refuted in my blog. Paul was not referring to Gods apostles of messengers of satan! he was calling out the fakes, they were not the apostles but those who claimed to be Jewish believers using their jewishness to gain authority while subverting Pauls authority:

      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.

      There is no link to the Apostles in 2corinthians. Paul did not Mock the apostles again as i easily proved from the greek in my blog, you picked a very dodgy translation for that verse, it says they were 'reputed' to be pillars, not 'supposed' which has an entirely wrong sense for the verse in english.

      Again you documentary makes out Barnabas left Paul over preaching to gentiles, while its very clear the reason was because Mark had left them in the middle of preaching the gospel and Paul felt him unreliable.

      Paul was not defeated in caesarea, it was a triumph. he got to preach to kings, governours and even caesar all expenses paid. What an awesome finish for a faithful minister of the Gospel of Jesus!

      Delete
    19. ROBO

      In summary, what’s in question here is not whether the basis for the Apostle Paul” A Polite Bribe narrative has evidence, but what view (presuppositions) you bring to the investigation. If there is s suspicion to the use of critical reason to examine scripture, there will be nothing discovered or learned, but only the theological hope of faith working on sustaining a faith, without the free use of enquiry. I don’t think any thinking believer or non-believer should subscribe to that idea.

      KEITH

      free use of enquiry is fine, i often ask God to teach me things i don't get and investigate points opposing my own, no problem, but if while in doubt i published my doubts as facts that wouldn't be very good would it? if i read somewhere Adam was from mars and saw a few things i thought might tally, it would still be wrong for me to make a film stating 'Adam was from Mars!' what would be better would be to say, 'i have an opinion its possible adam came from mars'. or 300 important scholars agree adam MAY have come from mars.

      My appeal to you is if you must write a book attack Paul please at least be honest about how speculative your arguments are. and be aware of what Peter wrote about those that wrest Pauls teaching. Also please note the gospel is for the whole world, and that Noah was not a Jew, neither was Abraham, Neither was Rachel or Rebecca, No not even Rahab. God has not finished with the Jews he will always have his remnant who believe for the sake of David and Abrahams seed even the lion of Judah blessed the roman centurion and samaritan woman, yet scorned the super religious pharisees.

      Delete
    20. To RobO,

      first i would like to say im glad you are willing to reply in detail, however i was unhappy to see my comments on youtube being deleted, i have a right to post my opinion and people have a right to consider my counter arguments.

      R: Not sure what you are referring to? - to my knowledge nothing has been deleted. My response would be, if you have a challenge to make, by God, bring it on!

      K: I can see for a non fundamentalist its easy to start picking holes in every little discrepancy, but as a total believer in Gods word i see my arguments as no less valid than yours, we are using the same sorce material.

      R: Your point wages the fundamentalist question. If we are not to agree on on world view (presuppositions) than where are we to find common ground enough to argue the facts of my view? Your fundamentalist view of Scripture would preclude any arguments of human reason.

      K: Its simple to see the real problem here is one of spin and conjecture.

      R: Research.

      K:You come at the scriptures believing money is a central issue, i believe in good faith in the character of the apostles and the fact they were honest men concerned more about truth and honour.

      R: Yet honor itself was tied to money, as it would be in any generation.

      K: There is nothing illogical about the fundamentalist view, the narrative of acts is clearly the next logical step after the ministry of Jesus. like its entirely logical to have 12 main apostles for the 12 tribes and 1 main apostle to the gentiles Paul.

      R: But there is NOT 12, nor do we know who they were. According to Paul they were aside from Peter (Cephas) and James AND Paul, so what are we to make of the 12? Are they unknowns?

      The only reason you cant see my logic is because you are taking the facts and with an entirely different view and without faith in Gods ability to have created inerrant scripture.

      Again, my fundamental point of almost all of your argumentation, that when we are using reason to understand a text or document, it MUST (de facto) be because there is some evil intent?? Fundamentalist or not, you're better than that!

      Delete
    21. ROBO

      You’re calling researched opinions – other than your own – “lies.” As to proven to be fact, even a fundamentalist would have a much more difficult time proving the notion of “inerrancy” or “God’s will to create a Canon” (not in the bible) than a scholar would merely weighing the evidence of scripture and biblical history and trying to make sense of the story, even for edification.

      KEITH

      Research as i have learned is normally only as good as the opinion of those funding it, in other words can often be bias. So called educated scholars don't impress me, as Gods word often warns about those who are wise in their own eyes. Jesus praised God the gospel was hid from the wise but given to babes.

      Some lies in your movie stated emphatically as if they were true and not debatable:

      *Jesus was a 'palestinian Jew'-Jesus was not or never will be palestinian.

      He was born in the region of Palestine.

      *Acts written decades later- Not proven fact, many good reasons for a late date.

      Not one of the scholars I read agreed with your conclusion., believers or not.

      *Paul rejected by Jame-conjecture not fact.

      As much conjecture as saying Paul's collection Was indeed accepted by James.

      K: *Luke failed to mention collection- he clearly didn't.

      R: He did not mention that Paul returned to Jerusalem to deliver the collection!, which is the only possible reason for him to return to the Holy land.

      K: *Paul was not a preacher when he returned finally to Rome- He clearly preached as described at the end of acts.

      R: Not relevant to the story I am telling.

      K: *Jerusalem church accepted a bribe-conjecture again.

      R: In fact, they did NOT, so Im not sure of your point?

      K: i could go on but i already have in my blog, every one of these things is stated as an unassailable fact in your documentary, when infact they are nothing but weak conjecture.

      R: Not conjecture, but hard reasoning to work through the facts we have!

      Delete
    22. KEITHIO

      You say i lose crediblity by accusing you of lies, but you yourself have accused the very apostles of Jesus christ. you have accised 5hem of taaking and recieving bribes, betrayel whitewashing and dishonesty.

      ROBO

      You’re in an argument loop again. Is the investigation of the bible on narrative or historical terms an accusation? Why so suspicious? Even putting aside the Old testament, are you actually arguing that the bible is not filled with stories of treachery, money, white washing, and dishonesty. Isn’t the message of Jesus that God came for sinners? Didn’t Peter pull a sword on the Roman Guard and betray Jesus 3 times? Wasn’t Matthew a tax collector? Wasn’t Judas bribed by the authorities? Didn’t Agabus warn Paul that he would be killed in Jerusalem? Wasn’t the women who spoke to Jesus dishonest about her husbands? Not only do I grasp how the human condition is present in scripture, but think it would be quite impossible to portray the New testament without it.

      KEITH

      This comes down to the fact of whether you believe the Apostles were honest.

      R: Not all but rather the economic, political or ethnic factors happening on the ground.

      K: Though you are correct, the scripture is filled with stories of all kinds of sins, i personally trust the apostles to have told the truth scrupulously, especially since they left the embarrassing bits in.


      R: Except for Paul's delivery of a (rejected) collection.

      K: Furthermore by faith i believe that the men who wrote the Bible did so by the inspiration of the Holy spirit.

      R: In spite of free will or human subjectivity? I cannot go there and it is not proved out by the manuscripts themselves!

      K: Its clear you don't share that faith, what i don't like to see is scriptures being twisted and conjecture stated as fact.

      R: How do you know what my faith is or not? If you are in ignorance of this knowledge, why accuse me of anything?


      K: Something it seems you have to do to tear apart Paul and the jerusalem church.

      R: Your argument can be likened to "have you stopped beating your wife? " Not an argument. As a believing Christian, I thought you might feel more comfortable with another tact?

      Delete
    23. K: Further Paul as i demonstrated in my Blog if you read it, preached from moses as taugh the fufilment of the law of moses just as in the time he spoke of not muzzling the ox while he treads the grain. he takes this law and expands it as a spiritual principle, thus fufiling it. Just as messiah expanded the law as a principle too.

      R: You are reading into the OT later Christian ideas.

      K: let me ask you, those jews who painted the lambs blood over the door of thier house. were thier first born saved by thier rightoesness? or was it by being good and keeping the law?

      R: I'm not a Lutheran so I do not have a problem with viewing the law ( for jews) as also spiritual.

      K: Jesus is our passover, his blood is over us too, not by keeping the law but by faith as Jesus commanded. And that blood is not over a door but over our head, thats why he was crucified over a skull.

      R: Yes, this is Christian teaching, but that does not mean, therefore, that Jews or Jewish Christians MUST believe this interpretation, which is why there was so much conflict!

      Delete

    24. R: This was in Paul's view no way the goal but an acceptance of the fact that many Jews and others (Galatians) would want to add the law or rituals or calendar dates to the saving grace of Messiah. Paul did not want this for believers, but allowed it to keep his revelation rooted in Jewish tradition.

      K: The point is some cant let go of tradition or the law, and as long as those things are not sinful they are free in the law of liberty to practice. The problem is when a person seeks to be justified by keeping a law, then they are no longer justified by faith and they add to the finished work of messiah who has atoned for us all by his own blood.

      R: To Paul Jesus plus ANYTHING was anathema!

      K: Why would James ask this of Paul then? for the weak in faith christians who found it hard to let go of the Law, to show them Paul had nothing against moses, and he didn't, he went through with it.

      R: Which argues the film's (and book's) point that this was a position Paul was forced to accept.

      K: James was easy company for the new Jewish converts saved by faith but also for the judaisers as james for the sake of the gospel was keeping the law. Paul however exposed the judaisers, by his preaching to the gentiles he showed that keeping the law was not necessary for salvation, but faith in the one God had sent was the central issue, Just as Jesus said, it he who believes who is saved.

      R: You're not thinking through your statements. Either the saving power of Christ IS or IS not inlcusieve of jewish law. Paul says NO.

      K: Can you imagine trying to run the Jewish church in Jerusalem for new jewish believers and not keeping the law? it would have pushed people away and given the judaizers and excuse to physically attack the church. No, James had liberty to keep the law and did so for the sake of the Gospel.

      R: Again, you are arguing the point of the film (book) that there was disagreement between Paul and James, and others, about what the gospel message truly was.

      K: Paul was no enemy when he arrived by the way, he was rather the victim of rumours spread by those who wanted to bring believers back under the law, the same people spoken of in 2peter who couldn't understand Paul and attacked his teachings to their own destruction.

      R: So, if Jewish Christians did NOT agree with Paul, why is the proposition of an early divided church that of a filmmaker's conjecture??

      Delete
    25. KEITHIO

      The mention of felix hoping for a bribe has nothing to do with Pauls collection. Felix just wanted an excuse to get rid of Paul who was convicting his concience. The money was never the center of the story instead the center was the story of the first preachers of the Gospel by the Power of the Holy spirit.

      ROBO

      It speaks quite directly to the bribe because it shows that Felix has an expectation that by stalling the judgment on Paul he might receive money. If Paul is only dealing with a collection for the poor and a man of poverty himself, where would this notion in Felix’s mind come from? It only makes sense that Paul was a man of some means. In addition earlier in Acts 24, Paul defends himself by saying he came to bring an “offering” to his people, the very story event missing 3 chapters earlier?

      KEITH

      The bribe Felix was hoping for was nothing to do with the church. Paul was a man of some means obviosly, its not to surprising that felix would have been given a heads up that Paul was quite an important and well funded person. As for the mention of the collection, sure Luke could have mentioned the money earlier but there is no reason he should have to, simply because its mentioned as a side issue does not mean it was not accepted or didn't happen, it just means it was or became a side issue to the bigger more important things going on at the time.

      R: I'm sorry Keith this is weak. He diverts his last years from a direct route from Corinth to bring a collection to Jerusalem, which meant a loss of time toward his ultimate mission to preach to the world AND the spending of more expenses, merely for secondary issue? NO. Rather his entire gospel message, which was his alone, and his future connections with Jewish Christianity were riding on the success of the collection. This is a fact that cannot be avoided by larger theological assumptions.

      Delete
    26. KEITHIO

      I am not afraid of your film or argueing any and all points that attack the inerrancy of Gods word. What i am afraid of is you causing the little ones of Jesus to stumble Mathew 18:6. That os why i have taken great time to refute this film.

      ROBO

      I understand the sentiment behind this point but you are misrepresenting what it means to be a “babe” or make the babes stumble. As Paul would say he doesn’t want believers to remain “on the milk” but to be able to grow to digest meat. And as for babes and knowledge Jesus said "Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore as wise as serpents and harmless as doves." In other words being a faithful babe is a Christian’s spirit in dealing with their fellow man or trusting God but not toward knowledge itself? Christian faith is hinged on the historical events of Jesus’ life and therefore the understanding of the story itself is inextricable to know the substance of belief, no?

      KEITH

      The little ones in this verse are those who humble themselves as a child and believe in Jesus. If by your book and/or movie you cause them to stumble into sin or doubt their savior and stumble back into false religion, well its extremely serious for you and for them. Eternal souls are at steak here, and i'm serious about protecting the fact of the Holy faith delivered to the saints and those new believers especially who don't have the knowledge of the scriptures to defend the new testament. We are not to remain babes as to knowledge, but to those who are babes as to knowledge your film and book will be a stumbling block as it takes away any confidence in Paul then luke and then finally the apostles as honest men led by God. its fine for you to have your opinions and speculations, but please dont speak of them as fact if they are not proven to be facts.

      R: Your assumptions here are too grandiose for even this humble filmmaker and author. I am no one's judge, but only one trying to put together the facts that are knowable in 1st century Christianity. The facts of that history remain on the side of my film and numerous other students of scripture, trying to understand our faith in light of a coherent story that is not dismissive of the preponderance of historical facts.

      Delete
    27. ROBO

      Never does the film or book “accused luke of writing nonsense.” And if we allow for the fact that Paul and Luke are writing in different time periods and from different sources, to emphasize their stories, why not mention the final trip to Jerusalem with the collection? It’s the only exception in a logical sequence of narrative events. The absence of the collection in Luke is curious at best and suspicious at worst? We know from the book of Romans it is one of Paul’s primary purposes for his trip to Jerusalem. The pillars of God’s Holy church are in conflict with one another not because a filmmaker 2000 years later says its so, but because it is in the texts. Interpreting the meaning or the degree of the conflict, yes, but not that any conflict existed.

      KEITH

      The point at which it is stated that Luke wrote nonsense is at 1:20:45 in the movie, check it yourself, its there in the movie plain as day.

      R: It concludes that Luke might have a reason to NOT mention the collection which isn supported by the scholars.

      K: Again i don't necessarily agree even that Paul's epistles and Acts were written at different time periods, there is good evidence (internal) that Luke was there with Paul himself. There is also good evidence for an early date for acts, stated in the Blog.

      R: Ok, but it is a view that I think is clearly on the fringe of the consensus of respected scholars.

      K: Again though the collection was important, i can see what was much more important was Paul being as a Jew to the Jews and showing respect to moses by taking the vow. The money is a far less important factor here, Jesus clearly preached against love of money, there is no reason for it to be central in the story.

      R: Apostle Paul; A Polite Bribe is NOT about the entire corpus of Christian theology but about how the collection impacted the early Church and in that right, it is as accurate as is possible. Divine intention by Holy men can be influenced by the need of economic support, but that does not mean they are ALL corrupt or without an other loftier goals.

      K: I again disagree that the pillars were in conflict, the real conflict was with those who were called the judaizers and false brethren, Jerusalem council ended any conflict between the apostles on the matter of keeping the law.

      R: Judaizers were merely Jewish Christian who did not agree with Paul.

      Delete
    28. KEITHIO


      I am very happy with asking tough questions about the bible and answering them. The things you claim are human factors are but speculation with negative spin, while non believing scholars may agree with you, there is no hard evidence to prove any of them.

      ROBO

      With a tough questioning approach what I have expressed in the book and film would not only be common knowledge but common sense. How do you describe any religious life without the human factors? Is it truly possibly to separate money from religion, or ethnic conflict? Is it negative to try to understand these factors in concert with how believers come to understand divine revelation? Do we lose our free wills and subjective minds merely because we believe? I have a film and a book with over a list of 300 authors and 400 footnotes, combined with 50 hours of interviews, that says there is plenty of hard evidence for these findings, and the influence of the collection on Paul’s mission.

      KEITH

      Appeal to numbers: most scholars believe X therefore X must be true numbers never lie? Do they?

      R: Yes.

      K: im sorry but your argument by numbers means nothing to me, millions of people believe in the Pope as having supreme authority, millions believe in buddha, millions believe in islam. certainly though im sure they are not all true, just because millions believe it, no matter how clever they think they are.

      R: I'm not saying that independent thought does not have its place, but when you are making judgments about the sun revolving around the earth or the genome project, scholars should be part of the conversation, no?

      K: Again your speculation is neither common knowledge or common sense, the negative spin i talk of is when you see corruption where there is none based on weak textual critisism and the assumption the apostles were motivated by cash.

      R: I have addressed this already in early exchanges, but this seems to be the crux of your argument. You are using a theological bulwark and inflated language to defend an untenable position for historical Christianity. The fact the money played a role does not mean that Paul was "motivated by cash" or a scoundrel of any kind!!! The continued effort to argue this point shows a closed minded bias that makes even the attempt at discussion futile. Did the past American Televangelist who suffered moral collapse and spent much air time trying to raise funds ONLY want money? NO! but that does not mean money did not play a role!

      K: The whole message of the new testament is completely against materialism and love of money. its like accusing Gandhi of murder because one of his mates died suspiciously, when Gandhi was a passionate pacifist. This is the opposite to common sense.

      R: I think Paul despised the need for the collection and its final return to Jerusalem and the fact that it would jeopardize his ultimate mission, but he needed to do it, in light of the fact that he had no other choices for reconciliation with Jerusalem.

      Delete
    29. KEITHIO


      Now about your points...1: Paul nowhere ever claimed to be one of the 12 apostles, he did though call himself the least of all the apostles in 1corinthians 15:92.

      ROBO

      So? My point is he was NOT one of the twelve. Many scholars will also argue that Paul in I Corithians 15 is trying to attach himself to the other 12 to show he is part of an apostolic legacy. The 12 also do NOT include James or Peter who Jesus also appeared to? Does that mean we have 14 or 15 Apostles, and after Judas commits suicide and is replaced by a new apostle in Acts (by drawing sticks) who is the real 12? This is why it is reasonable that 12 is symbolic to match the 12 tribes or some other significance of the number 12.

      KEITH

      12 is significant, its the 12 tribes and 12 apostles(sent ones) also the 12 pillars of the new jerusalem. Here is where the 12 are listed:

      Matthew 10:1-4:
      1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
      2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
      3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
      4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

      We know also that later Mathias replaced Judas. And yes we do have more than 12 even barnabas is referred to as an apostle at one point:

      R: Yes, Paul was an apostle, but were there only the twelve, or were there other apostles??
      Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

      K: Showing that Barnabas was also an apostle....

      R: On this one, I think you need to let go. The 12 was probably more symbolic than anything else.


      K: 1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

      R: ????


      K: Showing that many more apostles were and would be called....

      The 12 are a foundation built on the foundation of the 12 tribes upon which the church is built and continues to be built to this day. Apostles are still around today, just not the foundational ones. Also there are many fakes of course just as we were told there would be.

      R: Okay, but we have not way of knowing who the "original" twelve were.

      Delete
    30. KEITHIO


      Acts 15 and 2peter 3:15-16 prove that jerusalem church believed the same gospel of salvation by faith and approved of Paul.

      ROBO

      As for Acts 15, the fact that Luke says this, does not mean it makes sense according to what Paul says. They describe very different experiences of the early Church most likely because they are living in different times? One before the Fall of Jerusalem and one after the Fall. Did you ever consider that fact that Luke was writing scripture for a Roman Patron? He does not say I am writing this for the Lord, but for “Theophilus.” Even if you believe Luke was divinely inspired, does that mean he is corrupt because he is commissioned to write a history? Does his human subjectivities (genre, writing styles, distinctions with Paul, etc) make him corrupt or not capable of inspiration? This view is simply too narrow.

      We don’t need to venture off into the later epistles to make this point, but being you mentioned 1 Peter, I would respond in saying you did not read far enough. Many scholars point out that Peter here, even in this late period, still has to explain Paul, or defend (“hard to understand”) Paul to his fellow Christians.

      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.”
      The author is making two points, a) that some of Paul’s writings are “hard to understand” AND b) some can distort this fact. But b does not cancel out Peter’s point in a, that Paul is still hard to understand.

      KEITH

      Just because you get 2 different parts of the story from 2 different writtings it does not mean they have to conflict or reffer to somthing different. Both Pauls and Lukes account can sit nicely together each emphasizing a different aspect.

      Except on the collection.

      I do consider Luke to be inspired, the fact he was writing to a roman is no problem. Some of the epistles were also written to specific people, That does not detract that the Holy spirit had a greater purpose for them.

      Fine, but was the commission to write funded?

      K: As for 2Peter it is clear he considers Paul to be a beloved brother and his teachings to be correct though difficult for some. Just infact as some of the old testament is difficult for some too. Still because they are difficult that does not mean you can mess around with them or use them to attack the Gospel as some did, and are still doing to thier own destruction.

      R: Your going needlessly too far, Peter is merely in a position of needing to defend Paul's writings - case closed.

      K: Here then is a clear warning at the end of a chapter of warnings, that some will use Paul's writings to attack Gods word because some of his writing is difficult. This warning by the way is still very much in effect...

      R: Or perhaps they were, as many scholars argue, they were NEVER on the same page!

      Delete
    31. KEITHIO

      3. The collection was not the most important point, the most important point was that Paul was being accused of opposing moses, somthing that was not true.

      ROBO

      How can you say that Paul was not opposing Moses? It was the single cause of almost all of his strife. His vision and revelation of Jesus told him that a new epoch had come – no longer “Jew or Greek,” and therefore the Laws “were no longer written on stones” but in men’s hearts. This is why Paul was not accepted by his brethren and hated by non Christian Jews and rightfully so. He was asking them to trust his vision over the thousands of years of tradition and God’s revelation. And Jesus himself, though he spoke to the rigidity of the law (good deeds on the Sabbath), never said he had come to abolish it but to fulfill its every word. Not the same message as Paul.

      KEITH

      Here is the real center to what is behind your film in my opinion, in Jesus own Gospel though taught in parables he shows (as i demostrated in my blog) because the olive tree had no fruit, the King would go to the high ways and byways to find good and bad. He said go into the whole earth in the great commision! he said that salvation was to those who 'Believe' all through the gospel of John. Pauls Gospel was Just the same as Jesus Gospel, the law and traditions never saved anybody, rather it was faith and the works of faith as James speaks so clearly in his book.

      22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
      23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

      24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”


      Again if you take the time to read my blog i demonstrated this very simply, Abraham himself was a gentile. Who do you think Ruth and Rebbeca are a prophecy of? they are a picture of the church, gentile brides given pride of place on Gods holy nation.

      R: What does this have to do with our exchange on the collection???

      Psa. 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

      R: This was Paul's idea of why the Messiah was crucified.

      Delete
    32. As for the PSEUDO-APOSTLES 1 (Excerpt from the Book)

      They’re a sorry bunch—pseudo- apostles, lying preachers, crooked workers—posing as Christ’s agents but sham to the core. And no wonder! Satan does it all the time, dressing up as a beautiful angel of light. So it shouldn’t surprise us when his servants masquerade as servants of God. But they’re not getting by with anything. They’ll pay for it in the end. (2 Cor. 11:13–15) While scholars have debated the exact identity of these agents—both the pseudo- apostles and super apostles—since Paul did not give their names in his letter, we can make an informed guess based on the descriptions we have.265 Paul called them “false apostles” (2 Cor. 11:13) and “counterfeits of the real thing, dishonest practitioners” (2 Cor. 11:15, Phillips). We know they were Jews, as Paul acknowledged in saying, “Are they Hebrews? So am I” (2 Cor. 11:22). They also preached a Gospel of “good news,” which was a false gospel but a gospel nonetheless.266 And, contrary to Paul’s Gospel, they wanted all Gentile converts to become Jews by submitting to the Law and to circumcision, raising the very same conflict that had caused Paul to bargain with Jerusalem.

      Jerusalem leaders had sent emissaries to Corinth to disturb the way Paul was conducting his mission, and that meant the collection. These em- issaries spread rumors about Paul’s dependence on Jerusalem and accused him of embezzling the funds. And so Paul, who had been in jail for at least two years and maybe even four, who had been beaten and weakened from all his sufferings, was now forced to confront an all- out assault on his character. It must have seemed almost too much to bear. Paul had been thrown in jail and forced to work with his hands. He had had trouble in every congregation, so much that he’d had had to write numerous letters from prison to prevent his congregations from turning their backs on him (2 Cor. 11:5–11)...


      Delete
    33. As for the PSEUDO APOSTLES 2 (Excerpt from the book)

      Now his accusers used all these hardships against him. They interpreted the fact that Paul had needed to work as a laborer as a sign of his lack of sup- port, an invalidation of his Gospel message. “What sort of a leader was this?” they asked. If Paul were the true apostle as he claimed, God would have shown him honor and wealth and made people respect him for his prophet- ic insights.267 Most important, these apostles from Jerusalem accused Paul of being after his converts’ money, saying his effort to force an agreement through a collection was an attempt to earn himself respect in Jerusalem.

      According to them he was using the collection to line his pockets and/or buy his apostleship from Jerusalem. His collection, they said, was a bribe not only forcing the Jerusalem church to accept Paul but forcing the church to accept the Pauline Law- free Gospel. They saw the collection not as a free- will offering but as a stimulus to provoke a response, and that Jerusalem would not reciprocate.

      There was just enough truth to these accusations to make them sting. And while some Gentile members of Paul’s congregation felt it was an honor to give to God’s chosen people in Jerusalem, his accusers probably gave fuel to the fire of other Gentile believers already wondering why they should have given support to the center of Jewish worship, especially when the world would soon come to an end. Paul, against these apostles while in the Greco- Roman setting, stood between two worlds and essentially two churches: a Gentile Church that resisted helping Jewish people because of prejudice and the Jews who were reluctant to accept Gentile money.268 What made it worse was that when Paul was attacked, no one came to his defense. Those in whom he had confided betrayed him—the ones who had drifted so far away after the early squabbles that he had tried to resolve as if his own children had been the ones squabbling. He wrote in his first letter to Corinth: “So let no one boast about human leaders. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God” (1 Cor. 3: 21–23).

      Delete
    34. As for the Pseudo Apostles 3 (Excerpt from the Book)

      ...As Paul’s words to his once- loyal congregation indicated, the false apos- tles were a real threat to his ministry, especially because of their ties to Jerusalem, the center of Jewish religion. After all, “how many Jews around the Roman Empire at this time believed that Jesus was the Messiah and that the Kingdom of God had arrived?”

      Moreover, from that small percentage, how many believed that Paul was the chosen apostle called to carry out the mission? The answer is: not many. Some scholars argue there were many forms of Judaism in the first century, but on some level all Jewish identity would have still been linked with the Holy Land, Jerusalem, if only for the annual Passover.270 For Diaspora Jews the stress of living in a mixed culture actually meant the drawing of even stricter ethnic lines, particularly in the gymnasium or at shared meals. Paul’s Gospel was a direct threat to circum- cision and dietary laws, the suspension of which would have lowered these ethnic walls.

      Just who were these false apostles? Some believe that because of Paul’s words about their spiritual claims, these pseudo-­apostles were part of a rogue group from somewhere other than Jerusalem that claimed more spiritual prowess. Yet this argument dismisses the point that many men of visions and great claims were also located in Jerusalem. After all, wasn’t Paul a hardcore Pharisee, a man of the Law, and a visionary?...

      Delete
    35. As for the Pseudo Apostles 4 (Excerpt from the Book)

      It is most likely that the pseudo- apostles were from Jerusalem. Paul’s relationships with those at the Temple, those in authority, was the central conflict in his letters, and that meant James, Peter, and John. In his epistles Paul’s strongest reaction was not against outsiders but against those who knew the historical Jesus and could claim superior authority—an argument Paul could not refute. So, given the harsh way he described these pseudo- apostles, the most probable explanation is that it was only more of the same.

      This assumption is backed up by the fact that these apostles appeared bearing “letters of commendation” (2 Cor. 3:1).271 These were common in the ancient world, but it was not standard practice for the mother church in Jerusalem to issue them beyond Judea. As Paul is careful not to identify the source of the letters, we are compelled to ask: who else would send out Jewish apostles to preach a (false, according to Paul) Gospel mandating circumci- sion? The answer is that only one man could have sent letters of commen- dation willingly or unwillingly: James, the Lord’s brother.272

      And the men bearing the letters had followed Paul’s progress and claimed he had misled his own people with a message of Greek liberty from Jewish Law (2 Cor. 3:3–8). Could the pseudo- apostles perhaps have been the same “false breth- ren” Paul had encountered at the second council meeting, who, he claimed, had wanted Titus circumcised?273 Paul made it clear his battle was with the same opponents we heard about in Philippians, Galatians, and Rome—those who wanted to demand loyalty to the Jewish written Law, providing what Paul called the “ministry of death” (2 Cor. 3:7–11).” Paul needed to try something new. His arguments gave way to a rain of venom laced with sarcasm as he resigned himself to talking not of his apostleship but his sufferings in Christ as the way to legitimize his message:

      Are they ministers of Christ? I have more claim to this ti- tle than they. This is a silly game but look at this list: I have worked harder than any of them. I have served more prison sentences! I have been beaten times without number. I have faced death again and again. I have been beaten with rods three times. I have been stoned once. Shipwrecked three times. I have been twenty- four hours in the open sea...faced danger in city streets, danger in the desert, danger on the high seas, and danger among false Christians. I have known ex- haustion, pain, long vigils, hunger and thirst, going without meals, cold and lack of clothing. (2 Cor. 11:22–25, Phillips) He continued, “I have the daily burden of responsibility for all the Churches. Do you think anyone is weak without my feeling his weakness? If I am going to boast, let me boast of the things which have shown up my weakness! The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, he who is blessed forever, knows that I speak the simple truth” (2 Cor. 11:28–31, Phillips)...

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As for the Pseudo Apostles 5 (Excerpt from the Book)

    And if Paul were forced before to exaggerate his role in the mission, now he was pushed into the heavenly spheres. In one passage he claimed:
    So tremendous, however, were the revelations that God gave me that, in order to prevent my becoming absurdly conceit- ed, I was given a physical handicap—a messenger of Satan— to harass me and effectually stop any conceit. Three times I begged the Lord for it to leave me, but his reply has been, “My grace is enough for you: for where there is weakness, my power is shown the more completely.” (2 Cor. 12:7–9a, Phillips)

    Although Paul prayed three times, God would not remove what the apostle called a “thorn...in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7), which Paul claimed was necessary to remind him of his needed humility.274 His “thorn in the flesh” has been the source of much speculation among scholars; suggested “thorns” have included malaria, eye disease, and sexual preference.275 Some scholars have argued that Paul’s visions were the product of epilepsy. It seems un- likely, however, given his years of extensive travel, that his “thorn” could have been physical in nature. His sheer power of mind argued against the possibil- ity of mental affliction as his torment. Our best clues to this mystery might be found in the Hebrew scriptures, the primary source of Paul’s thoughts and language.276 In using the phrase “thorn in the flesh,” Paul was quoting a very old term in a new setting—something he had done throughout his minis- try.277 And in Hebrew scripture, a “thorn” did not indicate internal conflict but a physical other.278

    In the Hebrew Bible, the word thorn was used as a metaphor for Israel’s enemies: “But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell” (Num. 33:55, KJV, italics added); “Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns in your sides, and their Gods will be a snare to you’” (Judg. 2:3, italics added); and finally, “And you, son of man, neither fear them nor fear their words, though thistles and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions; neither fear their words nor be dismayed at their presence, for they are a rebellious house” (Ezek. 3:6, italics added).

    So, who could have been such a “thorn” for Paul and his Gospel? Again we come back to the fact that such a person could have come only from Jerusalem. The conflicts that informed Paul’s letters are best understood not by an argument of silence that attempts to survey the first- century Jewish sects in the Diaspora but by understanding the central conflict in his min- istry, which was the legitimization of his apostleship, the point at which he could be “pricked” by the leaders in Jerusalem.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As for the Pseudo Apostles 6 (Excerpt from the Book)

    At one level Paul was con- cerned with the varying styles and opinions of the sects, as when Apollos and Cephas showed up in Corinth, but on a second and more extreme level he reacted most violently to anyone distorting or adding to his Gospel message of freedom from the Law. And when it came to his Gentile converts, he was “not going to give an inch.”279 They represented the proof of his Gentile mis- sion and Christ’s very calling. His message could not fail.

    Only a Temple- based community would have held so strongly to Jewish Law and its insistence on circumcision or have been able to send out a “thorn in the flesh” who could challenge the original apostle. It seems Paul’s thorn could only be a manifestation of one of his main opponents from Jerusalem. As Paul warned, “Be on your guard against these curs, these wicked work- men, these would- be mutilators of your bodies! We are, remember, truly circumcised when we worship God by the Spirit, when we find our joy in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in what we are in the flesh” (Phil. 3:2–3, Phillips). And if the job of the thorns were to humble Paul, they did their work well in Macedonia, Greece, and Jerusalem.280 He fought this same bat- tle with his apostolic peers in Antioch when he wrote of their betrayal.

    To Paul, this message of his Gospel of grace made contingent on Law was a “dispensation of death,” one held to only under the influence of an evil spell, an alternate Gospel from that of Jesus.281 And as for further interference in his ministry, there was no end in sight.

    Almost fifteen years had passed, and Jesus had not returned. Paul’s churches had overflowed with Gentiles. He was facing not only theological but also cultural challenges from his opponents; he was increasingly seen as a maverick apostle breaking a social contract (the Law) with his fellow Jewish Christians. He was still connected in part, via the Temple, to the ancient Jewish faith, and so his dangerous message could no longer be tolerated.282 Although James, Peter, and John might have gone along with Paul earlier, they would do so no longer.

    In Paul’s last letters, he seemed to show cracks in his armor. His tone seemed like that of a man losing a long and difficult struggle283 through years spent behind bars and at war with his own people. Paul believed in his Gospel, but he never wanted to split the Church. Though he struggled for his independence, he always knew that God’s Kingdom could be only in Jerusalem, and for his mission to be valid it would have to include James.

    This knowledge caused Paul to do something dramatic. Some time after his second letter to the Corinthians, he decided even without invitation to turn from his Gentile mission to the west and head back to Jerusalem with the collection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In summary, I want to thank you for taking so much time to review the film with careful consideration.

      I don't think a Fundamentalist can ever get "out of the way" of their own circular reason which blinds them from possibly finding new trajectories of understanding based on reason and not necessarily suspicion. Also, I think my book (coming to a book store near you) will address if not answer most of your comments and contentions. Thanks

      RobO


      Delete
  5. While i could argue with you for the rest of my life over yhese points i believe the Lord gave me this word from Titus 3:

     9  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

     10  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

     11  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being

    On that note i will finish and i pray God will open your eyes. With love. Keith

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete