What I found interesting in the video's was the perspective of David Suchet and the people that he interviewed about Paul's life. They did not look at Paul from a Christian perspective. They perceived him as a man that had a radical change occur in his life, which then led him to do the exact opposite of what he previously was doing. Many times during the video, Suchet said that without Paul the Christian faith would have died out extremely quickly. He did not see Christianity as the only true religion. I found this perspective very intriguing during the two videos.
An example of this view that David Suchet had toward Christianity and Paul, is the fact that he wanted to know the "truth," or what "really happened" to convert persecuting Saul to preaching Paul. The Bible clearly states what happens on the road to Damascus to convert Saul so suddenly and dramatically. However, this information is not enough for Suchet. He feels like there is more to the story that meets the eye. He ends up talking to a man that thinks he has a rational explanation to this dramatic change instead of just accepting God's Word.
A part of David Suchet's journey that interested me the most was when they discussed the theory of how Paul became a Roman citizen. I had known that Paul grew up in Tarsus, but never knew or even pondered how he became a Roman citizen. The Theory, of him being a slave and then being released, therefore becoming a Roman citizen by law was probably the most interesting idea to me in the whole video.
To sum it up, the last piece of knowledge that I found remarkable was the fact that Paul dictated most of his letters. I have heard this before, but never to into full consideration what exactly that meant. This new meaning that the words in the books of the Bible are literally God's words spoke out loud through Paul is astounding.
I honestly learned a good amount of information from these videos and found them very enjoyable.
The person of Christ Jesus our Lord is commonly disputed, doubted, and challenged in the secular world today. Indeed, some of C.S. Lewis’s most famous apologetic responses to skeptics concludes that Christ could not have been simply a ‘good moral teacher who was misunderstood.’ Lewis declares that He is who He says he is, or he is a liar, a madman, or something worse. While misconceptions about Christ I have often heard, I have never before thought about the secular world’s perception of the apostles. In our blog assignments this week, I have encountered this in David Suchet’s documentary about the life and journeys of Paul, in which the great missionary is elevated to the cornerstone of Christianity.
As RW mentioned above, Suchet argues that without Paul, Christianity would probably have died as an obscure Jewish sect. While I agree that Paul was probably the greatest missionary of all time, Christ and his resurrection alone are the foundation of Christianity and Paul’s theology is the teaching of Christ’s ministry. Not only was Christ ignored, but many of the other early apostles were never mentioned, and Paul receives credit for the actions of others. Suchet seems to imply that Paul begins the preaching to the gentiles. But it was Peter who started the gentile conversions after his “kill and eat” vision. So while Paul was certainly a pivotal figure in early church history, Suchet overemphasized his role in Christian history.
Suchet talks of Paul as many talk about Christ today: he was a good guy, but misunderstood. It is not so much Paul himself that our culture so often misunderstands, but the nature of the message he preached. The motive that Suchet assigns to Paul’s vigorous evangelism is the belief that the world is ending quickly. While there are passages in the gospels in which Christ does seem to say he will return soon, I don’t think you can reduce the gospel motive of the early apostles to ‘hurry before it is too late.” This is certainly part of an evangelists’s mindset, but it is the love of Christ, obedience to his commands (the Great Commission), and the excitement brought by the Holy Spirit that is the key motive of ministry. Jesus says, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” This is our reason for spreading his word and story.
In conclusion, David Suchet, while presenting interesting facts about the life of Paul and places he traveled, takes the secularist route by focusing on the impact Paul had on the Christianity, and ignoring the impact that Christ, the true cornerstone, had on Paul.
After writing the above, I realized that I was thinking about this more as a Theologian than a Historian. That Paul's ministry changed history, I cannot doubt, but to credit him with the success of Christianity as a whole (as the documentary seemed to do) is inaccurate. Anyway, I thought it was interesting that there is ambiguity surrounding Paul's death. I always thought that he was beheaded, but didn't realize that there are no records of it. Very interesting.
This video takes us on an interesting journey through the travels of Paul, as well as giving fascinating insight into his life, and into the era and culture in which he lived. There were a few issues with it however, the main one being that they vastly downplayed the role of God, in fact not acknowledging His existence at all, in the spread of Christianity. Paul was portrayed as being a near superhuman individual, who was the primary reason that Christianity spread. By saying that, “The catalyst for this social and religious revolution was a 5’8” powerhouse called Paul. After Jesus, Paul is the most significant figure in the history of Christianity and the Western world” and “…Paul triumphed over the Roman Empire and succeeded in leaving a legacy that endures to this day” they make Paul out to be someone he was not, and to do something that he could never have done without divine help. Despite the shortcomings, there is still much to be learned from the video, and one of the things I found especially intriguing was how Paul become a Roman citizen; it is fascinating observing how everything that happened in Paul’s life was preparing him to be able to do the Lord’s work to his full potential and carry the gospel throughout the Roman empire.
Just as a quick note, David Suchet IS a Christian, who converted after reading St. Paul's epistle to the Romans. He was also the vice-president of the Bible Society, an Anglican mission that distributes Bibles around the world. So while you may not agree with his take on St. Paul, he is not exactly coming from a secular perspective.
That makes sense. I seem to remember him saying somewhere that a hotel Bible reading of Romans brought him to faith. While I still think that his take on Paul's role in Christianity is exaggerated, I have had a few days to think about it. Paul's writings are central to Christianity as they make up over half the New Testament. He concreted the doctrines of the early church that, as a result, have been preserved for centuries. However, I think Paul would have disliked this documentary because it missed presenting the gospel story in a clear way (the sacrifice of Christ). While I don't judge Suchet (well, I guess I did in my previous blurb) I don't think his documentary pointed enough to Christ.
Two things I thought were really interesting in the video. One criticism and one reall cool tidbit.
First, Suchet comes to some interesting conclusions about Paul's motives. When discussing the lead-up to the Jerusalem council, he talks about Paul's desire to reach the Gentiles. He makes it sound like Paul abandons the law and the requirement to first become a Jew simply so he can convert more Gentiles. He says that the Gentiles didn't want to follow the law, so in order to still win the Gentiles to Christ Paul just scraps the law. Suchet also uses phrases like "useless" or "ended" when referring to the old testament. However, Jesus himself explains he did not come to END the law but to FULFILL it. The law was a symbol of Christ's future act, as well as the moral foundations for the Jewish society. Certain rituals (such as circumcision and sacrifices) are no longer necessary - "we are not under law, but under grace" - but the law still forms the moral basis for our faith. When the Jerusalem council decides what portions of the law apply to the Gentiles in Acts 15, they say the MORALS still apply, but the RITUALS do not. That is exactly what Jesus preached. What was before imperfect about the law, Jesus perfected (Hebrews 10) Paul wasn't 'discarding' the law for the expedience of converting more Gentiles, he was preaching the TRUTH that Jesus was the fulfillment of the law. Faith, not works was now necessary. Paul didn't compromise the Bible in the interest of more converts. He was preaching Jesus as the fulfillment of the law and thus the hope for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
But I did find a really interesting concept when Suchet discussed Paul's visit to Ephesus. He notes that since Ephesus was a tourist city, those who heard Paul's message took it home with them. I never thought about the fact that Paul preached in many metropolises of the Roman world. Often, he was rejected. But his message had ramifications beyond what he realized, as people who traveled to and from those cities brought Paul's message of hope back to their native lands, reaching more places in the Roman empire and beyond than Paul ever could.
While I found the video's to be intriguing and educational about the people, towns, and events in Paul's time and age, there were many things that I had a problem with. Starting, though, with the intriguing parts: I thought that David Suchet's perspectives and findings about Paul were definitely enlightening. As others have mentioned, how Paul came to have Roman citizenship in Tarsus, the fact that he would supposedly dictate his letters, and that his letters were meant to be read out loud, thus making the letters his actual spoken words were all new revelations for me. Yet, there were still things that I did not agree with Mr. Suchet on. First of all, the way that Suchet goes about trying to find out who this "Paul really is", by going to where Paul went and talking with archeological and historical experts, is to me, not the best way. The best way is to, as Suchet realizes at the end of his journey, is to simply go to the Bible itself and read Luke's account of Paul in Acts and to read Paul's letters in the New Testament. Suchet also talks about the fact that Paul was very apocalyptic minded and, I agree and disagree, I agree that Paul was concerned about the end, but not the end of the world, rather, Jesus' second coming. Thus, since we cannot know when the 2nd coming will happen, we can for now, only focus on Paul's main message, that Jesus IS the Christ, the son of God, who took the punishment for our sins. As others have mentioned, Suchet makes Paul out to be the most important of the apostles and disciples, actually, while Paul was certainly one of the God's greatest tools in the spread of His word, Paul himself counts himself to be the "least of the apostles" (1 Cor. 15:9) then "the least of Christians" (Eph. 3:8) and even further to count himself as the "foremost of all sinners" (1 TIm. 1:15). Also, while Paul's ministry to the Gentiles was significant, most of his effects did not come to light until during the time he was imprisoned in Rome and after his death. Take the example of Aquila and Priscilla, for instance, they were, along with Crispus, pretty much the only people to believe Paul's message in Corinth and become believers. But the vast majority of the Jews and Gentiles in Corinth rejected Paul's message, going as far as to make a united attack on Paul and bring before the tribunal (Acts 18:12;ESV). It was not until much later that Aquila and Priscilla along with Crispus, would end up being the leaders of the church in Corinth and to whom Paul later wrote letters to, encouraging them in their struggles. Yet, while Paul was actually in Corinth preaching, his audience was pretty much completely hostile to his message. One final thing that I had a problem with was the fact that David Suchet said that Paul would dictate his letters when there are many times Paul says in his letters that he is writing the letter with his own hand: "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand" (1 Cor. 16:21); "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand" (Gal. 6:11); "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write." (2 Thess. 3:17) as can be seen in these and other instances Paul explicitly states that he is writing with his own hand. Now I am not discounting the he would dictate letters, just not all of his letters. In conclusion, while David Suchet's journey in the footsteps of Paul was very revealing and enlightening for him of who this bold speaker was, I think that the Bible is the best place to look since it is God's word.
I was quite surprised and intrigued to learn about Paul in a different way than I had previously viewed him. I think David did quite a good (if not a little biased) job of searching out the personality, drive, and interworking of Paul and his ministry. Starting from Paul’s origins, the idea that he was a freed slave that had originally lived in tarsus was a little mind blowing for me. Before I had viewed Paul as a wealthy Jewish aristocrat that grew up in Jerusalem but according to historians he may not have laid eyes on the city until age 20. My knowledge of Paul picked up when Paul finally reached Jerusalem and became integrated with the Pharisees. Now at this point according to the bible and David’s video Paul became a zealous follower of Jewish law and hated the Christians because they threatened Jewish law. Yet in soon after he discovers this in his video him and another historian come to the conclusion that he as a Christian revoked the law from Christian teachings. These two findings really seem to contradict each other If the Jewish law was threatened by the Christians and their teachings than why did Paul have to revoke the law from Christian observance. Obviously we as Christians know that the law was never part of Jesus’ teachings and it was only because of the doings of Jewish leaders that Christians became confused about the law and grace by faith. I was then quite intrigued to hear how David being a non-Christian took about explaining the conversion of Paul. After talking to a psychologist the only conclusion they could come to was that sometimes a person’s worst enemy will become his best friend if there is an identity struggle going on within them. This is a completely ridiculous theory that a man will turn 180 degrees by random because he might have been going through an identity crisis. He was going to kill a ton of Christians!!!!!! He was blinded!!!!! He changed from a man of vengeance to a man of love and compassion!!!! That is a change brought about by the Lord. Finally I was able to see how Paul operated, how he would find a synagogue or a friend’s house and start his ministry there, how he was still human in the sense that he was afraid to preach to a hostile people, but how God protected him and gave him wisdom to spread his word.
So first of all I just wanted to say a part of this that bothered me: In the first part David kept calling what Paul did as contributing to the "Jesus movement" To me that just made what Paul was doing sound so unimportant, like any other movement and not something supernatural and amazing. The rest of it really fascinated me. One of my dreams is to go to Israel and Rome and see all those place so it was cool just to catch glimpses of everything and to follow where Paul would traveled.
I think by calling early Christianity "The Jesus Movement" Suchet was able to emphasize that it was Paul who transformed a small jewish sect into the worlds most powerful religion. Possibly, before the term "Christian" came along, the "Jesus Movement" was the most accurate way to describe the new religion. It does sound rather trivial in English though....
I have to say David Suchet's overall demeanor rubbed me the wrong way. Now this is obviously just my opinion, so if someone disagrees feel free to share your own thoughts. Now, upon watching both episodes, I think they have shed some light on what type of Christian he is, if you will. I think he focussed too much on Paul as a man, not as Paul the distributer of the Lord's Word. He also said numerous times that he not only looked like Paul, but he also want to play Paul. I think the latter suggests he indeed saw him as a man, and while he was one, I think he was more than that. Anyone, who is able to dedicate his entire self to the Lord, in every sense, takes on a certain persona that separates him from others. I am not sure I am able to fully explain this, it is something I just picked up on when he was talking.
I have to also agree with RW, I found it quite strange for another Christian to challenge the Bible how he does when he said, "Now I want to find out what really happened." Perhaps he meant it in another way, such as wanting to find other references to the story. To me it almost he wants to be a Christian but with conditions such as, I will believe in this until there is compelling "truth" otherwise. I also agree with Max. It seemed like he covered a fair amount of information regarding both Paul's life as well as his surroundings. Which is fascinating, especially the fact that he travelled over 10,000 miles on foot and many more by sea. To me, that puts things into perspective, the true distances he went to spread the Word. However, he also seemed to focus on what Paul accomplished, which I suppose is fitting considering the episodes were about him. However, I wish he focused more on the relationship between Christ and Paul more closely, just as Max said, "[He] focus[ed] on the impact Paul had on...Christianity, [while for the most part] ignoring the impact that Christ, the true cornerstone, had on Paul."
Finally, it was interesting to find out that there really is not an end to Paul's story. In other words, there was never an account of what happened to him. It was also interesting to think about why this was, especially in the aspect that if people found out that he was killed, that could have changed the course of Christianity. With that being said, I looked up a map of where Paul travelled, and also a map depicting the spread of Christianity at roughly the same time period. Both maps are nearly identical.
Wow. Out of all the documentaries that we've watched for Rhetoric, this is my favorite so far. Fascinating, just fascinating. It was intriguing to hear and see all the different personal and places Suchet converses with and visits. What a wide range of perspectives and ideals, from Christians, to Jews, to Muslims to atheists. Having read through many of the comments above, most of what I would say has been covered.
One thing I found fascinating (that I don't think has been mentioned) is how often the documentary refereed to Paul's belief that it was "the end of time." That seemed to be a recurring theme. While I don't believe that was Paul's chief motive for spreading the Gospel, it was an interesting perspective to hear discussed.
@Ben and Nathan I definitely agree that the primary focus around Paul should be his work in spreading God's Word to the nations. I didn't, however, feel that Suchet's approach was in anyway intending to degrade that truth. As Mr. Parker mentioned in class last week: "As a historian it is important to understand the spiritual side, but a historian's job is also to look at the physical side of things too." I think Suchet is presenting the facts, already accepting that Christianity is The Way (as our Faith was referred to in the early days of the church). I thought his reading of the Scriptures at the end was a very powerful and positive element to hint at this truth.
this is probably one of my favorite videos for history, Its really interesting to think about how Paul was willing to walk 10,000 miles just to get the chance to be able to teach the good news and have the chance to convert people to Christianity is really amazing to think about. Also is interesting how he started out as a zealous persecutor of the Christians then he became a zealous follower of Jesus and started teaching and traveling all over the map to be able to teach people about the lord. Its also interesting to think about how he was willing to support the stoning of people for there beliefs then being able to write beautiful things and begin teaching the very thing that he stoned and persecuted people for, its really remarkable to see what people Jesus uses to bless and change the lives of other people.
I thought it was very interesting to see how God formed Paul's early life to prepare him for bringing the gospel to the gentiles. Paul was a Jewish Pharisee, and thus had studied Jewish oral law, but he was also a Roman citizen, which would give him rights in the Roman Empire. In addition, Paul had studied under Gamaliel, an eminent Jewish Rabbi, in Tarsus in Turkey. He had also evidently studied popular philosophy and poetry at one time or another, as shown by his speech at the Areopagus, where he quotes a couple of Greek intellectuals. "For 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'Fore we are indeed his offspring.'" (Acts 17:28, ESV) Somewhere after Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, Luke starts calling him Paul as opposed to Saul. This is not so much a change in meaning, as in Abram to Abraham, but rather a change in origin. Saul is a Jewish name, whereas Paul is the Greek version of Saul. By this it is shown that it has become Paul's message to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, to be a witness to Christ "to the end of the earth." (Acts 1:8b, ESV) He had truly become "all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 19:22b, ESV)
WOW. Just wow. I'm not sure that I liked David Suchet hosting the videos, but it was really, really life changing, what he got to do and show others. We've heard so much about what happens on the road to Damascus, and about Paul meeting with Lydia, and all those other stories that happen in the book of Acts, and even beyond that. But can you imagine? Being able to set foot where Paul set foot over 2 thousand years ago? Being able to see where Paul met Lydia at first, and being in the very same place where Paul changed so many lives? It's almost as powerful as going to Jerusalem where Jesus lived, or going to Bethlehem and seeing the manger. Of course, I have no idea if it's even possible to see the manger or to see where Jesus grew up, but I hope you see what I'm saying. It is an unbelievable thing to watch. Even my brothers at ages 6 and 7 were astounded that you could go "where the Bible is", they loved that idea.
I'd like to begin my hopefully brief blog post with a little comical insight into the video. When Suchet conveyed his deep bewilderment as he waded through the ancient underground walls of the Temple, he came up to the ancient boulders lying beneath the soil. He gave the rocks a look of disbelief, he exclaimed, "these boulders are 2,000 years old?!" and, of course, slaps one...Not much of an archaeologist I suppose.
Moving on, I'd like to comment on what RW already mentioned: Suchet's inquiry of, "What really happened to Paul that led to his dramatic transformation?" It's interesting, especially with the added insight that Suchet is indeed a Christian, that he kept asking this question throughout the video and didn't seem to want to concede to the fact that it was because of God's divine intervention.
Lastly, I loved how the video displayed the various ways God had so fastidiously planned out Paul's ministry. One of my favorite examples of this from the video was rooted in his upbringing. For example, because Paul (or Saul, rather) was brought up in a higher standard of education, language, and being more acclimated to more metropolitan environments than most Jews of the time, Paul proved to be well equipped for his ministries in daunting urban cultures like Athens, Antioch, and, of course, Rome. It is wonderful and refreshing to see how God's hand works through people to enact his divine plan exactly how he wants throughout history.
I want to begin be again coming back to what RW and Mark had mentioned about how Suchet, being a CHristian, could miss that God was what happened to Paul to bring about his transformation. A second thing that Suchet said that really struck me is when in part 1 at about minute 18, he is talking about Paul and says, "its amazing to think that a man who did something as awful as stoning a man to death, could later be turned to write such moving words." Again, the answer to that question is that only by the power and restoration of God is that transformation achievable. Closing, I really enjoyed these videos. They were informitive, interesting, and thought provoking. I learned many things from these videos that really helped me gain a better understanding about the life of Paul.
What I found interesting in the video's was the perspective of David Suchet and the people that he interviewed about Paul's life. They did not look at Paul from a Christian perspective. They perceived him as a man that had a radical change occur in his life, which then led him to do the exact opposite of what he previously was doing. Many times during the video, Suchet said that without Paul the Christian faith would have died out extremely quickly. He did not see Christianity as the only true religion. I found this perspective very intriguing during the two videos.
ReplyDeleteAn example of this view that David Suchet had toward Christianity and Paul, is the fact that he wanted to know the "truth," or what "really happened" to convert persecuting Saul to preaching Paul. The Bible clearly states what happens on the road to Damascus to convert Saul so suddenly and dramatically. However, this information is not enough for Suchet. He feels like there is more to the story that meets the eye. He ends up talking to a man that thinks he has a rational explanation to this dramatic change instead of just accepting God's Word.
A part of David Suchet's journey that interested me the most was when they discussed the theory of how Paul became a Roman citizen. I had known that Paul grew up in Tarsus, but never knew or even pondered how he became a Roman citizen. The Theory, of him being a slave and then being released, therefore becoming a Roman citizen by law was probably the most interesting idea to me in the whole video.
To sum it up, the last piece of knowledge that I found remarkable was the fact that Paul dictated most of his letters. I have heard this before, but never to into full consideration what exactly that meant. This new meaning that the words in the books of the Bible are literally God's words spoke out loud through Paul is astounding.
I honestly learned a good amount of information from these videos and found them very enjoyable.
RW Rienow
Secular Saints
ReplyDeleteThe person of Christ Jesus our Lord is commonly disputed, doubted, and challenged in the secular world today. Indeed, some of C.S. Lewis’s most famous apologetic responses to skeptics concludes that Christ could not have been simply a ‘good moral teacher who was misunderstood.’ Lewis declares that He is who He says he is, or he is a liar, a madman, or something worse.
While misconceptions about Christ I have often heard, I have never before thought about the secular world’s perception of the apostles. In our blog assignments this week, I have encountered this in David Suchet’s documentary about the life and journeys of Paul, in which the great missionary is elevated to the cornerstone of Christianity.
As RW mentioned above, Suchet argues that without Paul, Christianity would probably have died as an obscure Jewish sect. While I agree that Paul was probably the greatest missionary of all time, Christ and his resurrection alone are the foundation of Christianity and Paul’s theology is the teaching of Christ’s ministry. Not only was Christ ignored, but many of the other early apostles were never mentioned, and Paul receives credit for the actions of others. Suchet seems to imply that Paul begins the preaching to the gentiles. But it was Peter who started the gentile conversions after his “kill and eat” vision. So while Paul was certainly a pivotal figure in early church history, Suchet overemphasized his role in Christian history.
Suchet talks of Paul as many talk about Christ today: he was a good guy, but misunderstood. It is not so much Paul himself that our culture so often misunderstands, but the nature of the message he preached. The motive that Suchet assigns to Paul’s vigorous evangelism is the belief that the world is ending quickly. While there are passages in the gospels in which Christ does seem to say he will return soon, I don’t think you can reduce the gospel motive of the early apostles to ‘hurry before it is too late.” This is certainly part of an evangelists’s mindset, but it is the love of Christ, obedience to his commands (the Great Commission), and the excitement brought by the Holy Spirit that is the key motive of ministry. Jesus says, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” This is our reason for spreading his word and story.
In conclusion, David Suchet, while presenting interesting facts about the life of Paul and places he traveled, takes the secularist route by focusing on the impact Paul had on the Christianity, and ignoring the impact that Christ, the true cornerstone, had on Paul.
After writing the above, I realized that I was thinking about this more as a Theologian than a Historian. That Paul's ministry changed history, I cannot doubt, but to credit him with the success of Christianity as a whole (as the documentary seemed to do) is inaccurate. Anyway, I thought it was interesting that there is ambiguity surrounding Paul's death. I always thought that he was beheaded, but didn't realize that there are no records of it. Very interesting.
With that, Max Pointner
"It's complicated, but really awesome at the same time...if you think about it."
DeleteThis video takes us on an interesting journey through the travels of Paul, as well as giving fascinating insight into his life, and into the era and culture in which he lived. There were a few issues with it however, the main one being that they vastly downplayed the role of God, in fact not acknowledging His existence at all, in the spread of Christianity. Paul was portrayed as being a near superhuman individual, who was the primary reason that Christianity spread. By saying that, “The catalyst for this social and religious revolution was a 5’8” powerhouse called Paul. After Jesus, Paul is the most significant figure in the history of Christianity and the Western world” and “…Paul triumphed over the Roman Empire and succeeded in leaving a legacy that endures to this day” they make Paul out to be someone he was not, and to do something that he could never have done without divine help. Despite the shortcomings, there is still much to be learned from the video, and one of the things I found especially intriguing was how Paul become a Roman citizen; it is fascinating observing how everything that happened in Paul’s life was preparing him to be able to do the Lord’s work to his full potential and carry the gospel throughout the Roman empire.
ReplyDeleteJust as a quick note, David Suchet IS a Christian, who converted after reading St. Paul's epistle to the Romans. He was also the vice-president of the Bible Society, an Anglican mission that distributes Bibles around the world. So while you may not agree with his take on St. Paul, he is not exactly coming from a secular perspective.
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense. I seem to remember him saying somewhere that a hotel Bible reading of Romans brought him to faith. While I still think that his take on Paul's role in Christianity is exaggerated, I have had a few days to think about it. Paul's writings are central to Christianity as they make up over half the New Testament. He concreted the doctrines of the early church that, as a result, have been preserved for centuries. However, I think Paul would have disliked this documentary because it missed presenting the gospel story in a clear way (the sacrifice of Christ). While I don't judge Suchet (well, I guess I did in my previous blurb) I don't think his documentary pointed enough to Christ.
DeleteTwo things I thought were really interesting in the video. One criticism and one reall cool tidbit.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Suchet comes to some interesting conclusions about Paul's motives. When discussing the lead-up to the Jerusalem council, he talks about Paul's desire to reach the Gentiles. He makes it sound like Paul abandons the law and the requirement to first become a Jew simply so he can convert more Gentiles. He says that the Gentiles didn't want to follow the law, so in order to still win the Gentiles to Christ Paul just scraps the law. Suchet also uses phrases like "useless" or "ended" when referring to the old testament. However, Jesus himself explains he did not come to END the law but to FULFILL it. The law was a symbol of Christ's future act, as well as the moral foundations for the Jewish society. Certain rituals (such as circumcision and sacrifices) are no longer necessary - "we are not under law, but under grace" - but the law still forms the moral basis for our faith. When the Jerusalem council decides what portions of the law apply to the Gentiles in Acts 15, they say the MORALS still apply, but the RITUALS do not. That is exactly what Jesus preached. What was before imperfect about the law, Jesus perfected (Hebrews 10) Paul wasn't 'discarding' the law for the expedience of converting more Gentiles, he was preaching the TRUTH that Jesus was the fulfillment of the law. Faith, not works was now necessary. Paul didn't compromise the Bible in the interest of more converts. He was preaching Jesus as the fulfillment of the law and thus the hope for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
But I did find a really interesting concept when Suchet discussed Paul's visit to Ephesus. He notes that since Ephesus was a tourist city, those who heard Paul's message took it home with them. I never thought about the fact that Paul preached in many metropolises of the Roman world. Often, he was rejected. But his message had ramifications beyond what he realized, as people who traveled to and from those cities brought Paul's message of hope back to their native lands, reaching more places in the Roman empire and beyond than Paul ever could.
Soli Deo Gloria!
-Christopher
While I found the video's to be intriguing and educational about the people, towns, and events in Paul's time and age, there were many things that I had a problem with. Starting, though, with the intriguing parts: I thought that David Suchet's perspectives and findings about Paul were definitely enlightening. As others have mentioned, how Paul came to have Roman citizenship in Tarsus, the fact that he would supposedly dictate his letters, and that his letters were meant to be read out loud, thus making the letters his actual spoken words were all new revelations for me. Yet, there were still things that I did not agree with Mr. Suchet on.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the way that Suchet goes about trying to find out who this "Paul really is", by going to where Paul went and talking with archeological and historical experts, is to me, not the best way. The best way is to, as Suchet realizes at the end of his journey, is to simply go to the Bible itself and read Luke's account of Paul in Acts and to read Paul's letters in the New Testament. Suchet also talks about the fact that Paul was very apocalyptic minded and, I agree and disagree, I agree that Paul was concerned about the end, but not the end of the world, rather, Jesus' second coming. Thus, since we cannot know when the 2nd coming will happen, we can for now, only focus on Paul's main message, that Jesus IS the Christ, the son of God, who took the punishment for our sins. As others have mentioned, Suchet makes Paul out to be the most important of the apostles and disciples, actually, while Paul was certainly one of the God's greatest tools in the spread of His word, Paul himself counts himself to be the "least of the apostles" (1 Cor. 15:9) then "the least of Christians" (Eph. 3:8) and even further to count himself as the "foremost of all sinners" (1 TIm. 1:15). Also, while Paul's ministry to the Gentiles was significant, most of his effects did not come to light until during the time he was imprisoned in Rome and after his death. Take the example of Aquila and Priscilla, for instance, they were, along with Crispus, pretty much the only people to believe Paul's message in Corinth and become believers. But the vast majority of the Jews and Gentiles in Corinth rejected Paul's message, going as far as to make a united attack on Paul and bring before the tribunal (Acts 18:12;ESV). It was not until much later that Aquila and Priscilla along with Crispus, would end up being the leaders of the church in Corinth and to whom Paul later wrote letters to, encouraging them in their struggles. Yet, while Paul was actually in Corinth preaching, his audience was pretty much completely hostile to his message. One final thing that I had a problem with was the fact that David Suchet said that Paul would dictate his letters when there are many times Paul says in his letters that he is writing the letter with his own hand: "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand" (1 Cor. 16:21); "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand" (Gal. 6:11); "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write." (2 Thess. 3:17) as can be seen in these and other instances Paul explicitly states that he is writing with his own hand. Now I am not discounting the he would dictate letters, just not all of his letters.
In conclusion, while David Suchet's journey in the footsteps of Paul was very revealing and enlightening for him of who this bold speaker was, I think that the Bible is the best place to look since it is God's word.
I was quite surprised and intrigued to learn about Paul in a different way than I had previously viewed him. I think David did quite a good (if not a little biased) job of searching out the personality, drive, and interworking of Paul and his ministry. Starting from Paul’s origins, the idea that he was a freed slave that had originally lived in tarsus was a little mind blowing for me. Before I had viewed Paul as a wealthy Jewish aristocrat that grew up in Jerusalem but according to historians he may not have laid eyes on the city until age 20. My knowledge of Paul picked up when Paul finally reached Jerusalem and became integrated with the Pharisees. Now at this point according to the bible and David’s video Paul became a zealous follower of Jewish law and hated the Christians because they threatened Jewish law. Yet in soon after he discovers this in his video him and another historian come to the conclusion that he as a Christian revoked the law from Christian teachings. These two findings really seem to contradict each other If the Jewish law was threatened by the Christians and their teachings than why did Paul have to revoke the law from Christian observance. Obviously we as Christians know that the law was never part of Jesus’ teachings and it was only because of the doings of Jewish leaders that Christians became confused about the law and grace by faith. I was then quite intrigued to hear how David being a non-Christian took about explaining the conversion of Paul. After talking to a psychologist the only conclusion they could come to was that sometimes a person’s worst enemy will become his best friend if there is an identity struggle going on within them. This is a completely ridiculous theory that a man will turn 180 degrees by random because he might have been going through an identity crisis. He was going to kill a ton of Christians!!!!!! He was blinded!!!!! He changed from a man of vengeance to a man of love and compassion!!!! That is a change brought about by the Lord. Finally I was able to see how Paul operated, how he would find a synagogue or a friend’s house and start his ministry there, how he was still human in the sense that he was afraid to preach to a hostile people, but how God protected him and gave him wisdom to spread his word.
ReplyDeleteSo first of all I just wanted to say a part of this that bothered me: In the first part David kept calling what Paul did as contributing to the "Jesus movement" To me that just made what Paul was doing sound so unimportant, like any other movement and not something supernatural and amazing.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of it really fascinated me. One of my dreams is to go to Israel and Rome and see all those place so it was cool just to catch glimpses of everything and to follow where Paul would traveled.
I think by calling early Christianity "The Jesus Movement" Suchet was able to emphasize that it was Paul who transformed a small jewish sect into the worlds most powerful religion. Possibly, before the term "Christian" came along, the "Jesus Movement" was the most accurate way to describe the new religion. It does sound rather trivial in English though....
DeleteI have to say David Suchet's overall demeanor rubbed me the wrong way. Now this is obviously just my opinion, so if someone disagrees feel free to share your own thoughts. Now, upon watching both episodes, I think they have shed some light on what type of Christian he is, if you will. I think he focussed too much on Paul as a man, not as Paul the distributer of the Lord's Word. He also said numerous times that he not only looked like Paul, but he also want to play Paul. I think the latter suggests he indeed saw him as a man, and while he was one, I think he was more than that. Anyone, who is able to dedicate his entire self to the Lord, in every sense, takes on a certain persona that separates him from others. I am not sure I am able to fully explain this, it is something I just picked up on when he was talking.
ReplyDeleteI have to also agree with RW, I found it quite strange for another Christian to challenge the Bible how he does when he said, "Now I want to find out what really happened." Perhaps he meant it in another way, such as wanting to find other references to the story. To me it almost he wants to be a Christian but with conditions such as, I will believe in this until there is compelling "truth" otherwise. I also agree with Max. It seemed like he covered a fair amount of information regarding both Paul's life as well as his surroundings. Which is fascinating, especially the fact that he travelled over 10,000 miles on foot and many more by sea. To me, that puts things into perspective, the true distances he went to spread the Word. However, he also seemed to focus on what Paul accomplished, which I suppose is fitting considering the episodes were about him. However, I wish he focused more on the relationship between Christ and Paul more closely, just as Max said, "[He] focus[ed] on the impact Paul had on...Christianity, [while for the most part] ignoring the impact that Christ, the true cornerstone, had on Paul."
Finally, it was interesting to find out that there really is not an end to Paul's story. In other words, there was never an account of what happened to him. It was also interesting to think about why this was, especially in the aspect that if people found out that he was killed, that could have changed the course of Christianity. With that being said, I looked up a map of where Paul travelled, and also a map depicting the spread of Christianity at roughly the same time period. Both maps are nearly identical.
Wow. Out of all the documentaries that we've watched for Rhetoric, this is my favorite so far. Fascinating, just fascinating. It was intriguing to hear and see all the different personal and places Suchet converses with and visits. What a wide range of perspectives and ideals, from Christians, to Jews, to Muslims to atheists. Having read through many of the comments above, most of what I would say has been covered.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found fascinating (that I don't think has been mentioned) is how often the documentary refereed to Paul's belief that it was "the end of time." That seemed to be a recurring theme. While I don't believe that was Paul's chief motive for spreading the Gospel, it was an interesting perspective to hear discussed.
@Ben and Nathan
I definitely agree that the primary focus around Paul should be his work in spreading God's Word to the nations. I didn't, however, feel that Suchet's approach was in anyway intending to degrade that truth. As Mr. Parker mentioned in class last week: "As a historian it is important to understand the spiritual side, but a historian's job is also to look at the physical side of things too." I think Suchet is presenting the facts, already accepting that Christianity is The Way (as our Faith was referred to in the early days of the church). I thought his reading of the Scriptures at the end was a very powerful and positive element to hint at this truth.
this is probably one of my favorite videos for history, Its really interesting to think about how Paul was willing to walk 10,000 miles just to get the chance to be able to teach the good news and have the chance to convert people to Christianity is really amazing to think about. Also is interesting how he started out as a zealous persecutor of the Christians then he became a zealous follower of Jesus and started teaching and traveling all over the map to be able to teach people about the lord. Its also interesting to think about how he was willing to support the stoning of people for there beliefs then being able to write beautiful things and begin teaching the very thing that he stoned and persecuted people for, its really remarkable to see what people Jesus uses to bless and change the lives of other people.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting to see how God formed Paul's early life to prepare him for bringing the gospel to the gentiles. Paul was a Jewish Pharisee, and thus had studied Jewish oral law, but he was also a Roman citizen, which would give him rights in the Roman Empire. In addition, Paul had studied under Gamaliel, an eminent Jewish Rabbi, in Tarsus in Turkey. He had also evidently studied popular philosophy and poetry at one time or another, as shown by his speech at the Areopagus, where he quotes a couple of Greek intellectuals. "For 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'Fore we are indeed his offspring.'" (Acts 17:28, ESV) Somewhere after Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, Luke starts calling him Paul as opposed to Saul. This is not so much a change in meaning, as in Abram to Abraham, but rather a change in origin. Saul is a Jewish name, whereas Paul is the Greek version of Saul. By this it is shown that it has become Paul's message to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, to be a witness to Christ "to the end of the earth." (Acts 1:8b, ESV) He had truly become "all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 19:22b, ESV)
ReplyDeleteWOW. Just wow. I'm not sure that I liked David Suchet hosting the videos, but it was really, really life changing, what he got to do and show others. We've heard so much about what happens on the road to Damascus, and about Paul meeting with Lydia, and all those other stories that happen in the book of Acts, and even beyond that. But can you imagine? Being able to set foot where Paul set foot over 2 thousand years ago? Being able to see where Paul met Lydia at first, and being in the very same place where Paul changed so many lives? It's almost as powerful as going to Jerusalem where Jesus lived, or going to Bethlehem and seeing the manger. Of course, I have no idea if it's even possible to see the manger or to see where Jesus grew up, but I hope you see what I'm saying. It is an unbelievable thing to watch. Even my brothers at ages 6 and 7 were astounded that you could go "where the Bible is", they loved that idea.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to begin my hopefully brief blog post with a little comical insight into the video. When Suchet conveyed his deep bewilderment as he waded through the ancient underground walls of the Temple, he came up to the ancient boulders lying beneath the soil. He gave the rocks a look of disbelief, he exclaimed, "these boulders are 2,000 years old?!" and, of course, slaps one...Not much of an archaeologist I suppose.
ReplyDeleteMoving on, I'd like to comment on what RW already mentioned: Suchet's inquiry of, "What really happened to Paul that led to his dramatic transformation?" It's interesting, especially with the added insight that Suchet is indeed a Christian, that he kept asking this question throughout the video and didn't seem to want to concede to the fact that it was because of God's divine intervention.
Lastly, I loved how the video displayed the various ways God had so fastidiously planned out Paul's ministry. One of my favorite examples of this from the video was rooted in his upbringing. For example, because Paul (or Saul, rather) was brought up in a higher standard of education, language, and being more acclimated to more metropolitan environments than most Jews of the time, Paul proved to be well equipped for his ministries in daunting urban cultures like Athens, Antioch, and, of course, Rome. It is wonderful and refreshing to see how God's hand works through people to enact his divine plan exactly how he wants throughout history.
Cheers,
-Mark Fratto
I want to begin be again coming back to what RW and Mark had mentioned about how Suchet, being a CHristian, could miss that God was what happened to Paul to bring about his transformation.
ReplyDeleteA second thing that Suchet said that really struck me is when in part 1 at about minute 18, he is talking about Paul and says, "its amazing to think that a man who did something as awful as stoning a man to death, could later be turned to write such moving words." Again, the answer to that question is that only by the power and restoration of God is that transformation achievable.
Closing, I really enjoyed these videos. They were informitive, interesting, and thought provoking. I learned many things from these videos that really helped me gain a better understanding about the life of Paul.
-Graham