Says so right here:
Posted on 04/07/2018 8:39:53 PM PDT by rey
Is Paul, Apostle of God an appropriate move to take a 13 almost 14 year old to? I realize it is PG 13 but he was greatly abused and eventually beheaded. How traumatic might it be.
Thanks
I took my 11 year old. There is violence - Christians are shown being burned alive as Roman Candles, a woman whose family is slaughtered by the Romans shows up covered in blood, prisoners are beaten, etc. I didn’t have a problem with it because quite frankly what’s on TV is worse and this is historically accurate. I think it helped my daughter conceptualize martyrdom & how people suffered and are suffering for their faith.
I do not know you, only what you have said here. Reread your words as if they were written by a stranger. What do they say to you?
I saw it the other night with my brother. A very serious movie (with perhaps five seconds of even an attempt at humor) and thought provoking.
I thought about the themes long after the movie was over.
I say yes, bring the boy if he is amenable.
Says so right here:
>>>Paul’s death is historical fact.<<<
In Bible-believing churches kids know that Paul was stoned to death in Lystra . . . something which the vast majority of mainline denominational churches know nothing about. I doubt this film will even go there.
We saw it last night.
It helps if you explain that this is REALLY what happened to Paul and other Christians because of their faith.
Also, explain much of the blood is from Roman sacrifices to stone idols.
Explaining is the key ingredient in “Parental Guidance”
By all means take the young teens.
It will help provide perspective to CURRENT government restrictions to the free exercise of religion.
The death of everyone not alive today is an historical fact. What is the source material for the movie?
Ooops, wrong Paul.
Careful, the various questions of historicity in this context and regarding this particular topic are vastly misunderstood, as influenced by certain ideologies.
Paul was beheaded in Rome by Nero
... and stoned to death in Lystra 2 Corinthians 12:2 and Acts 14:19, 20
Neither Acts 14 nor 2 Corinthians 12 indicate that Paul was stoned to death and died (physically) in Lystra.
What translation are you using?
Most likely, the words and records of the historian Eusebius, along with the testimony of the early Church Fathers.
The only translation . . . KJB.
In Acts 14 Paul was stoned and left for dead, then he rose up and went to another city. In 2 Corinthians 12 he speaks of the event that occurred 15 years earlier . . . the man that went to glory and saw things unlawful to speak of was Paul.
Believe it or reject it . . . it doesn’t change my understanding of the Scripture one bit.
You do know that, if Paul was left for dead but then went to another city, that logically implies that he didn’t actually die in Lystra, right?
What gives the King James version such authority and primacy over all other translations before and after?
The Word says he rose up (from dead) - how else did that man (Paul) see what he did which was forbidden to speak about?
First: the Scripture says that the Jews took him for dead, not that he actually died.
Second: 2 Corinthians, based on general consensus, was penned prior to 57 A.D. His first trip to Lystra, wherein he was left for dead, occurred in 48 A.D.
The timeline doesn’t match.
For your claim to hold, he would have had to have penned 2 Corinthians in 62 A.D. at the earliest.
General consensus?
How about A.D. 45 for Lystra and 2 Corinthians 12 60 A.D.
Your timeline accounts for 9 years. I won’t ask how you derive that.
What I do wonder is whether you doubt that anyone rose from the dead in Acts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.