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 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; and 27:1-28:16.  The author may, in these sections, be using a travel diary that he himself wrote at an earlier time, drawing on a diary written by a companion of Paul."1
    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 7:55-60; 12:2)? The James spoken of here is not James the brother of John who was recorded as being executed in Acts 12:1-2.  This is the James spoken of in Acts 15:13ff who is also mention in Gal. 1:19 as an apostle, the Lord's brother. 

Objections answered

  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 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; and 27:1-28:16.  The author may, in these sections, be using a travel diary that he himself wrote at an earlier time, drawing on a diary written by a companion of Paul."1

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.
Posted by at 42 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)