Jim Caviezel and The Power of “Paul: The Apostle of Christ” | Interview

When you knew about it from the Inner Tuber way before it came out

Oh my gosh, he sounds so pretentious….

Cool interview Kevin! Curious to see how this one turns out ^_^

I want Michael Scott to play Jesus…..

Why is Caviezel and his writers lying about the movie? It is inaccurate for them to claim that the book of Acts was written AFTER the fire of Rome. By placing the writing of Acts within a few weeks of Paul’s execution turns Luke into a liar who was more concerned about building a misplaced faith rather than a historian as we see in the introductions to both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Acts was largely written as a defense of Paul’s inclusion as a foundational apostle with the others. Luke began collecting the material for the book of Acts including his diaries after he teamed up with Paul in Acts 16. The film-maker presents Paul as having basically lost his mind due to guilt, suffered an epileptic fit brought on by the guilt of having murdered Christians and spent the rest of his life trying to atone for it. The film-makers present Luke as covering for Paul’s ineptness at any kind of leadership and then writes the book of Acts by embellishing all the facts. There are no miracles presented in this movie, even in Paul’s flashback to his own conversion. His retelling of it and Luke’s later committing of it to text tells the Christian viewer that Luke basically lied because he and Paul agreed that it is better for a person to die believing in something that gives you hope rather than to save your family from being thrown to wild animals. Cotton candy laced with cyanide.