Peter and Paul

[Cherub]

On the advice of a fellow parishioner, I checked Peter and Paul (a movie) out from our church library to take home and watch. Has anyone else seen this? I was put off by some things in this film, mainly concerning the depiction of the early church, and the literal interpretation that Peter went to Babylon and only went to Rome after Paul’s execution – and then, apparently, only long enough to get himself arrested and crucified. The movie seemed to be very heavy on Paul as the main man, and showed his travels throughout the old world, his preaching to the Greeks, etc… and at all the gatherings, there was never a mention of the Eucharist at all. Peter spent most of his time lamenting his own failures. It was good and entertaining, but seemed historically flawed and made me really wonder where people got these impressions, and how this film ended up in our library at church. (well…right beside a “new age” book called The Celestine Prophecy. Go figure. )

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ve seen it dozens of times – I had it to review for study groups. My recommendation was, “No.” It’s simply too shot full of inaccuracies. Clearly, whoever made it had a theological ax to grind, and he wasn’t too particular about changing the Bible to match his preconceptions.

 

[New_Heart]

Sorry to disappoint many of you, but that movie tells it like the Bible does. The main of the New Testament is Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles and Jewish converts. Have you not noticed? Peter wrote two epistles, John wrote three, plus the Revelation of Jesus Christ in Ephesus after his release from the Isle of Patmos, Jude wrote one, James wrote one, and the author of Hebrews has never truly been determined except that the teachings follow closely to what Jesus taught and what Paul teaches throughout his epistles. Luke wrote the book of Acts and obviously was on at least one of Paul’s journeys and was in Rome with him at least for a time. In all we have 27 New Testament books; the majority being Paul’s writings.

The apostle Paul says he got his teaching directly from Christ, and Peter speaks of some of Paul’s teaching as hard to be understood. So even Peter directed believers to what Paul was teaching, hard as it was, but Peter’s ministry was limited, but not diminished, and James made the final decisions as to who did what where in the early church, and he directed from Jerusalem not from Rome.

According to the Scriptures, Peter was not present yet when Paul was preparing for his death, and is not addressed in any of the epistle to the Romans either, nor is he mentioned in the closing of the last letter to Timothy . If Peter were present in Rome I am sure Paul would have mentioned him in the extensive list, or acknowledged him in some way. See chapters 15:30 - 16:27.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

New Heart:

Sorry to disappoint many of you, but that movie tells it like the Bible does. The main of the New Testament is Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles and Jewish converts. Have you not noticed? Peter wrote two epistles, John wrote three, plus the Revelation of Jesus Christ in Ephesus after his release from the Isle of Patmos, Jude wrote one, James wrote one, and the author of Hebrews has never truly been determined except that the teachings follow closely to what Jesus taught and what Paul teaches throughout his epistles. Luke wrote the book of Acts and obviously was on at least one of Paul’s journeys and was in Rome with him at least for a time. In all we have 27 New Testament books; the majority being Paul’s writings.

The apostle Paul says he got his teaching directly from Christ, and Peter speaks of some of Paul’s teaching as hard to be understood. So even Peter directed believers to what Paul was teaching, hard as it was, but Peter’s ministry was limited, but not diminished, and James made the final decisions as to who did what where in the early church, and he directed from Jerusalem not from Rome.

According to the Scriptures, Peter was not present yet when Paul was preparing for his death, and is not addressed in any of the epistle to the Romans either, nor is he mentioned in the closing of the last letter to Timothy . If Peter were present in Rome I am sure Paul would have mentioned him in the extensive list, or acknowledged him in some way. See chapters 15:30 - 16:27.

I am not disappointed. I haven’t seen this movie but I doubt that it is as accurate as you think. Probably because you believe inacurate things.
vern humphrey says that it’s simply too shot full of inaccuracies. Clearly, whoever made it had a theological ax to grind, and he wasn’t too particular about changing the Bible to match his preconceptions
Your comments fall under this as well. You have an ax to grind that ax is of one who has left the true faith and now attacks it. I have read several of your posts and it is interesting that you are unclear in exactly what you mean. You attack Mary being full of grace by pointing to her ancestors. I am sure that there is a connection in your mind that has to do with your loss of faith.

 

[vern_humphrey]

New Heart:

Sorry to disappoint many of you, but that movie tells it like the Bible does. .

Sorry to disappoint you, but the edition I have comes with a teaching and discussion book that lists, by chapter and verse, the errors.

I went through it, teaching book in one hand, bible in the other – and it’s full of errors. The Council of Jerusalem is presented wrongly and the woman with the Python spirit are two that come to mind.