tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post4942953262146117259..comments2014-07-01T14:58:38.871-07:00Comments on Apostle Paul: A polite bribe REFUTATION: Apostle Paul a polite bribe REFUTEDAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12511861707134043146noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-1107849089044161822014-07-01T14:50:45.644-07:002014-07-01T14:50:45.644-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587963044376069398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-66983544911010728772014-07-01T14:43:47.058-07:002014-07-01T14:43:47.058-07:00 While i could argue with you for the rest of my l... 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: <br /><br /> 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.<br /><br /> 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;<br /><br /> 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being <br /><br />On that note i will finish and i pray God will open your eyes. With love. Keith<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06587963044376069398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-23253308175317624682014-06-30T10:33:57.948-07:002014-06-30T10:33:57.948-07:00In summary, I want to thank you for taking so much...In summary, I want to thank you for taking so much time to review the film with careful consideration. <br /><br />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<br /><br />RobO<br /><br /><br />PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-56390283015637484622014-06-30T10:30:45.758-07:002014-06-30T10:30:45.758-07:00As for the Pseudo Apostles 6 (Excerpt from the Boo...As for the Pseudo Apostles 6 (Excerpt from the Book)<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-82251625572664583962014-06-30T10:29:34.930-07:002014-06-30T10:29:34.930-07:00As for the Pseudo Apostles 5 (Excerpt from the Boo...As for the Pseudo Apostles 5 (Excerpt from the Book)<br /><br />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:<br />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) <br /><br />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<br /><br />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).<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-19629909022122167102014-06-30T10:27:54.512-07:002014-06-30T10:27:54.512-07:00As for the Pseudo Apostles 4 (Excerpt from the Boo...As for the Pseudo Apostles 4 (Excerpt from the Book)<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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 <br /><br />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:<br /> <br />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)...<br /> <br />PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-67041169356887363342014-06-30T10:25:58.249-07:002014-06-30T10:25:58.249-07:00As for the Pseudo Apostles 3 (Excerpt from the Boo...As for the Pseudo Apostles 3 (Excerpt from the Book)<br /><br />...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?”<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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?...<br /><br />PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-39336727628372207162014-06-30T10:23:49.771-07:002014-06-30T10:23:49.771-07:00As for the PSEUDO APOSTLES 2 (Excerpt from the boo...As for the PSEUDO APOSTLES 2 (Excerpt from the book)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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).<br /> <br />PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-27165781251811097422014-06-30T10:21:43.088-07:002014-06-30T10:21:43.088-07:00As for the PSEUDO-APOSTLES 1 (Excerpt from the Bo...As for the PSEUDO-APOSTLES 1 (Excerpt from the Book)<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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)...<br /> <br /><br />PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-52635629978720599222014-06-30T10:19:07.416-07:002014-06-30T10:19:07.416-07:00KEITHIO
3. The collection was not the most import...KEITHIO<br /><br />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. <br /><br />ROBO<br /><br />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.<br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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.<br /><br /> 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.”<br />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.”<br /><br />24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />R: What does this have to do with our exchange on the collection??? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />R: This was Paul's idea of why the Messiah was crucified. PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-78295600610320081652014-06-30T10:17:23.047-07:002014-06-30T10:17:23.047-07:00KEITHIO
Acts 15 and 2peter 3:15-16 prove that je...KEITHIO<br /><br /><br />Acts 15 and 2peter 3:15-16 prove that jerusalem church believed the same gospel of salvation by faith and approved of Paul.<br /><br />ROBO<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br />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.<br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Except on the collection. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Fine, but was the commission to write funded? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />R: Your going needlessly too far, Peter is merely in a position of needing to defend Paul's writings - case closed. <br /><br />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... <br /><br />R: Or perhaps they were, as many scholars argue, they were NEVER on the same page! PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-4697530622845111522014-06-30T09:31:22.632-07:002014-06-30T09:31:22.632-07:00KEITHIO
Now about your points...1: Paul nowhere ...KEITHIO<br /><br /><br />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. <br /><br />ROBO<br /><br />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.<br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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:<br /><br />Matthew 10:1-4:<br />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.<br />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;<br />3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;<br />4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />R: Yes, Paul was an apostle, but were there only the twelve, or were there other apostles??<br />Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, <br /><br />K: Showing that Barnabas was also an apostle....<br /><br />R: On this one, I think you need to let go. The 12 was probably more symbolic than anything else. <br /><br /><br />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. <br /><br />R: ???? <br /><br /><br />K: Showing that many more apostles were and would be called....<br /><br />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.<br /><br />R: Okay, but we have not way of knowing who the "original" twelve were. PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-68420998890305681102014-06-30T09:29:05.057-07:002014-06-30T09:29:05.057-07:00KEITHIO
I am very happy with asking tough questi...KEITHIO<br /><br /><br />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. <br /><br />ROBO<br /><br />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. <br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />Appeal to numbers: most scholars believe X therefore X must be true numbers never lie? Do they?<br /><br />R: Yes. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-37120691361251398222014-06-30T09:26:41.543-07:002014-06-30T09:26:41.543-07:00ROBO
Never does the film or book “accused luke of...ROBO<br /><br />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. <br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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.<br /><br />R: It concludes that Luke might have a reason to NOT mention the collection which isn supported by the scholars. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />R: Ok, but it is a view that I think is clearly on the fringe of the consensus of respected scholars. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />R: Judaizers were merely Jewish Christian who did not agree with Paul. PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-64343985793185108162014-06-30T09:21:25.262-07:002014-06-30T09:21:25.262-07:00KEITHIO
I am not afraid of your film or argueing ...KEITHIO<br /><br />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. <br /><br />ROBO<br /><br />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?<br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-21918618828465352572014-06-30T09:20:07.037-07:002014-06-30T09:20:07.037-07:00KEITHIO
The mention of felix hoping for a bribe h...KEITHIO<br /><br />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.<br /><br />ROBO<br /><br />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? <br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-4840229031981347982014-06-30T09:18:39.070-07:002014-06-30T09:18:39.070-07:00R: This was in Paul's view no way the goal but...<br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />R: To Paul Jesus plus ANYTHING was anathema! <br /><br />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.<br /><br />R: Which argues the film's (and book's) point that this was a position Paul was forced to accept. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?? PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-80603439351037933192014-06-30T09:09:44.621-07:002014-06-30T09:09:44.621-07:00K: Further Paul as i demonstrated in my Blog if yo...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.<br /><br />R: You are reading into the OT later Christian ideas. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />R: I'm not a Lutheran so I do not have a problem with viewing the law ( for jews) as also spiritual. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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!PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-4519451213750332022014-06-30T09:08:14.759-07:002014-06-30T09:08:14.759-07:00KEITHIO
You say i lose crediblity by accusing you...KEITHIO<br /><br />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. <br /><br />ROBO<br /><br />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.<br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />This comes down to the fact of whether you believe the Apostles were honest.<br /><br />R: Not all but rather the economic, political or ethnic factors happening on the ground.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br /><br />R: Except for Paul's delivery of a (rejected) collection.<br /> <br />K: Furthermore by faith i believe that the men who wrote the Bible did so by the inspiration of the Holy spirit.<br /><br />R: In spite of free will or human subjectivity? I cannot go there and it is not proved out by the manuscripts themselves! <br /> <br />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.<br /><br />R: How do you know what my faith is or not? If you are in ignorance of this knowledge, why accuse me of anything?<br /><br /> <br />K: Something it seems you have to do to tear apart Paul and the jerusalem church.<br /><br />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?PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-89221256050619841572014-06-30T09:06:05.723-07:002014-06-30T09:06:05.723-07:00ROBO
You’re calling researched opinions – other t...ROBO<br /><br />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.<br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Some lies in your movie stated emphatically as if they were true and not debatable:<br /><br />*Jesus was a 'palestinian Jew'-Jesus was not or never will be palestinian.<br /><br />He was born in the region of Palestine.<br /> <br />*Acts written decades later- Not proven fact, many good reasons for a late date.<br /><br />Not one of the scholars I read agreed with your conclusion., believers or not. <br /> <br />*Paul rejected by Jame-conjecture not fact.<br /><br />As much conjecture as saying Paul's collection Was indeed accepted by James.<br /> <br />K: *Luke failed to mention collection- he clearly didn't.<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />K: *Paul was not a preacher when he returned finally to Rome- He clearly preached as described at the end of acts.<br /><br />R: Not relevant to the story I am telling.<br /> <br />K: *Jerusalem church accepted a bribe-conjecture again.<br /><br />R: In fact, they did NOT, so Im not sure of your point? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />R: Not conjecture, but hard reasoning to work through the facts we have! PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-3436654863884147282014-06-30T09:04:02.997-07:002014-06-30T09:04:02.997-07:00To RobO,
first i would like to say im glad you ar...To RobO,<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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!<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />K: Its simple to see the real problem here is one of spin and conjecture. <br /><br />R: Research.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />R: Yet honor itself was tied to money, as it would be in any generation. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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!PaulBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700921824735978213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-75062098086416036792014-06-25T16:32:45.000-07:002014-06-25T16:32:45.000-07:00ROBO
In summary, what’s in question here is not w...ROBO<br /><br />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.<br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511861707134043146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-85772500004875436572014-06-25T16:13:50.894-07:002014-06-25T16:13:50.894-07:00ROBO
In 2 Corinthians, certainly the attackers of...ROBO<br /><br />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.<br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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:<br /><br />2Co 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. <br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511861707134043146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-80661046739932653062014-06-25T15:50:32.410-07:002014-06-25T15:50:32.410-07:00KEITHIO
I am not afraid of your film or argueing ...KEITHIO<br /><br />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. <br /><br />ROBO<br /><br />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?<br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511861707134043146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67431532708270577.post-19507798916471249552014-06-25T15:32:12.753-07:002014-06-25T15:32:12.753-07:00KEITHIO
The mention of felix hoping for a bribe h...KEITHIO<br /><br />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.<br /><br />ROBO<br /><br />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? <br /><br />KEITH<br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511861707134043146noreply@blogger.com