razeontherock
Well-Known Member
Together
Not merely oversaw it, but was the one bringing charges, and insisting upon this gruesome punishment.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero, allegedly, according to tradition, around the same time Peter was also martyred.
Stephen, another believer, was stoned to death as told in Acts, and a not as of yet converted Paul was there and oversaw it.
Why do the NT writers putting their lives on the line make him correct but Joseph Smith's followers not?
Could you point out which parts you feel are written by someone other than Isaiah, and which parts are more authentic? Any ideas on when the more recent parts were written?
I have my doubts about everything written being an exact history. Plenty of them, in fact. What is history and what is allegory is a very interesting discussion, but not one for here.
However, if you believe something and share that, it is fine. I believe many things. If you would like to convince others ...
What proof do you have that the Gospels were not written far later by people who were never there?
I don't think Stephen ever met Christ in the flesh.
Not only that, but we only have the death of one Apostle in the text.
Even taking the text at face value, there is no basis for saying that all of them died for their beliefs. Do we even have a clear record of what all of them ended up doing?
When they were actually written matters not. They were public knowledge, recited daily. More to the point, performed in such a way that nearly the whole Church would have been involved in the production before too long. You couldn't come along and substantially change something in your recording of it, w/o that change being challenged and overthrown.
Pretty sure that's false
Paul and Judas at the minimum. Peter is prophecied to be martyred by no less than Jesus, so that's a take it to the bank in the text.
Who else?
Yeah, we do. The Church is big on the lives of the Saints.
Every one of the original 12, with the possible exception of John the Revelator / theologian / beloved. We have already established that this is unique among religions, and that you still manage to poo-poo it's significance - just because you do.
Dear Ray,
Just because I believe the Book of Isaiah has more than one author does not mean I think the more recent chapters are any less authentic scripture.
Chapters 40-66 are often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah because they are written in a totally different style and at a different period that the earlier chapters. Some have suggested that the very last chapters were written by still another author, but I've seen strong evidence for only two authors. The author of Deutero-Isaiah is writing towards the end of the Babylonian Captivity, when Cyrus is on the move but has not yet taken Babylon. One of the reasons scholars believe this was an authentic prophecy (as opposed to one written after the fact) is because not everything predicted comes to past.
I do not believe that just because a text is pseudopigraphic that it can't contain the Word of God.
warmest, Susan
Proof that this occurred would be appreciated. I have seen you make the claim, but it is something I have never heard claimed previously and something I have found no evidence to support.
Which Judas are we talking about?
Where is it recorded that Paul died?
You don't get to take it to the bank just because it says it will happen.
I assume you mean built.
No, you have the Church's existence. That proves absolutely nothing about the Apostle's deaths.
We are discussing the claim right now. You claim it occurred and make it unique. Did it happen though is a far greater question. The evidence is, well, simply tradition. That's fine, but not convincing.
But be honest, you're not really for such evidence
How do you define tradition? No differently than how you got the Torah; except for being written about 1,000 years closer to the event, and certainly within the natural lifespan of the eyewitnesses.
I would be quite surprised to learn that Early Christians put on performance pieces when I'm also told that they were killed for their beliefs. Seems like a contradiction but what do I know?
We know the killing didn't start til after 70AD. That leaves a time period you aren't accounting for, and texts neither of us have seen.
Really? I thought the Jews were killing all the ones they could find. I mean, if you'd like to tell me what I believe (the Jews and the early Christians weren't mortal enemies), that's fine. But we have the issue of Paul going around killing people to fly in the face of that.
It certainly didn't happen in the Temple! As I'm sure you know, certain things were off limits there. No doubt that contributes to why Christians assembled there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?