Jbarrax

Of course. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that Paul had and encouraged followers.

From the Church epistles. As noted above, Paul's epistle to the Galatians indicates that he was loved and respected by them at one time. Also I Corinthians 1:12 indicates that Paul had followers, even though he didn't encourage them it. ...or did he? As is the case with many topics in the NT, Paul can be used as a reference for each side of the argument. He criticized the Corinthian church for being carnal when they argued over whose disciples they were, but in the same epistle encouraged --in fact, begged them-- to be his "followers". So we could argue till the cows come home as to whether Paul had a following. I submit that he did and that he encouraged such behavior. And that was a good thing because he was a dedicated man of God. But when he got incarcerated after having gone his own way, some--perhaps most--of his followers were dissuaded from their devotion to his gospel and became devotees of other leaders in the Church. Certainly it wasn't just the trip to Jerusalem and his subsequent imprisonment that caused or allowed that. He was fighting the influence of the legalists long before that. It was this fight that compelled him to go to Jerusalem against the will of the Lord. But after the trip and imprisonment, I think Paul's opponents gained the upper hand.

...those three quotes are all from different parts of the movie, btw.

He had followers before he went to Jerusalem and got arrested. :-) Galatians 4:14 & 15 indicate that the believers in that region held him in very high esteem. Of course the epistle as a whole indicates that their love and respect for Paul was apparently eradicated by the legalistic zealots from Jerusalem got in there and turned them around.

More the latter. The name Doyle (Popeye Doyle is the main character) and the term "Frog one" gave it away. The drug smugglers in the movie are French. The fact that we watched it about six months ago also helped. :-) Okay here's the next one.

The French Connection. :-)

Not quite a fit analogy Steve. Jesus was guiltless and was crucified for our sins. Paul was imprisoned after disobeying the declared will of the Lord. So Paul's lingering imprisonment could have been seen as a sign of the Lord's displeasure with his trip which could have weakened his leadership in the Church. Obviously his most loyal followers stuck by him. But we must also remember that Paul had adversaries in the Church. There were determined leaders who believed, as James did, that Paul's gospel was wrong and that his lifestyle among the Gentiles was wrong. Paul's imprisonment would doubtless have given these factions more ammunition and credibility. If he had not gone to Jerusalem, he could have continued to confront their legalism in person with the full force of his persona, moving among the Gentile churches as the Spirit of the Lord directed. Having been locked up, he was limited to writing letters. In light of this environment, it is certainly reasonable to believe that part of the reason "all Asia" had turned away from him was because his adversaries were able to use his imprisonment against his reputation and as an opportunity to go after his followers without him being able to challenge them in person.

...what she said. :-)

You got it Wordwolf. You're up. :D

Correctumundo! Your turn Maddy. :D

They're from three different parts of the movie.

Okay. So I need an obvious quote that defines a film. How about...

Oh boy! My turn again.

I think you folks misunderstand. I'm not saying God never forgave Paul for going. Obviously he did because Jesus appeared to him and told him to take courage and gave him another assignment. Paul was forgiven, but there were still consequences from his act of disobedience. Being forgiven for a sin doesn't erase all the practical consequences of it. Lots of felons repent and get saved in prisons today. They receive remission of sins and eternal life, but they don't get sprung as soon as they're baptized. They still have to deal with the consequences of what they did. That's why wisdom is so important. Folly has consequences.

Maddy? Did I get it or not?

Too easy. My Fair Lady.

Hi Gen-2. I had a friend who worked as a research engineer who posited the same idea about...8 years or so ago. The concept is that time is linear and Jesus of Nazareth was born as a man inside the linear time stream. But Heaven is outside the time stream since God invented time and exists beyond time. (From him and through him and unto him are all things). So when Jesus the man was taken up into heaven and seated at the right hand of God he was lifted outside of the linear time stream and became essentially eternal. So he could, in a sense, exist before he was born. It's a temporal paradox, but it explains how John could say that he came down from heaven and how Jesus could say "before Abraham was, I am (or whatever the quote is). It also supports a Unitarian interpretation of Colossians 1:16 which asserts that all things were made by him (en him according to the Greek) and for (unto)him.

YEP!

Good article Raf! I could post some of my blogs, but they're all about the sign industry so I don't think anyone here would be interested. :-)

Next clue. This one ought to give it away. If this one doesn't do it, the next one will. "I’m getting tired of your gas. Jerk that pistol and go to work...{hard slap to the face} "I said throw down, boy. {Another slap. Tyler stays frozen, blood dripping down his chin.} "You gonna do something or just Stand there and bleed?"

Oh! The Thomas Crown Affair! right?

Teachmevp I think if you do some research and give a little more weight to the information CMAN is trying to share, you'll find that your concept of a "harmony" of the four gospels is a false premise. Most Biblical scholars aknowledge that John doesn't fit. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are therefore referred to as "the synoptic gospels" because they obviously share a common viewpoint. John is so different in tone it can't be considered to be harmonious with the others. And it's not just so-called Trinitarian dogma that separates John from the other four canonical gospels. • John uses the phrase Son of God repeatedly, a term rarely seen in the others. • John includes the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. According to John, Lazarus became so famous that the Pharisees planned to kill him with Jesus. I find it odd that such a significant event isn't even mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I'm not saying it didn't happen... • The other three focus on the Transfiguration on the Mount, which, by the way, presents Moses and Elijah alongside Jesus putting him in the company of the great prophets of old. John makes no reference to it. The fact that Peter refers in his epistle to Transfiguration as a defining experience lends added support to the fact that it happened. Yet nowhere else in the canonical NT is Lazarus mentioned. It is widely believed that the principle difference between John and the Synoptic Gospels is that John was written specifically as a gospel to the Gentiles and therefore downplays Jesus--excuse me; Yeshua's--Judean heritage. By ignoring the Transfiguration, ( as well as the story of his birth in The City of David, his sermons about keeping the Law, etc) John presents Jesus as a singular miraculous creation dropped into the world straight from heaven; not as a man born and raised as a Jewish rabbi, the promised Messiah of whom Moses and Elijah prophesied. Now the key question is; what do any of those differences have to do with the Trinity? I don't see any connection. Perhaps you can illumninate us.

I don't think anyone knows for sure beyond the Scripture. But if you looked only at the Scripture I think it's fairly obvious that the impact of his ministry was lessened. Look at the difference just in Acts. After that event, there's no record of him participating or leading any significant new outreach. Look at how often he seems to have to apologize for his incarceration in the Church epistles. On the common sense point, ask yourself why God would spend so much time warning Paul not to go and specifically warning him about captivity if it didn't impede his ministry? If it didn't make any difference in his ministry, why would God work so hard to get him to change his mind; even to the point that everyone around him knew he was being disobedient? But your basic point is valid. We really don't know, so it's a matter of opinion as to the consequence. But I think it's pretty clear that the trip itself was not God's will.

Thanks. I don't think it's particularly well written; rather redundant actually, but it communicates the idea. LOL. That is one of the best. The expanded literal according to usage adds, "Hell you should see 'em last night after supper at Luke's place. They were all sh&^faced!"

I know I've seen that scene with the quote about the $30 million. It's some kind of wheeler-dealer insider trading flick. Wallstreet?