Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Christianity…

I believe you are correct....

According to Dr John Oaks, he says..... "The Bible does not say that Paul himself actually killed any Christians. It does say in Acts 7:58 that he was present at the stoning of Stephen and that he approved this act. Whether he actually threw one of the stones is not stated one way or another. It is certainly possible that he actually threw one of the stones, in which case he would have killed a Christian. However, one gets the sense that Paul was a very high level leader of the Jews and an important Pharisee, despite the fact that he was relatively young. Such a person normally will not get their hands dirty by actually performing an execution. Therefore, if I were to guess (and it would be just a guess), I would imagine that he never actually did the physical act of killing a Christian. However, he oversaw such arrests and executions. He confesses this in his own writings. He tells us in Acts 22:4-5 that he persecuted Christians and saw to their arrest and punishment. In Acts 9:1 we hear that Paul was making “murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples.” As far as Paul was concerned, he felt that he was responsible for the killing of Christians. He felt that he was “the worst of sinners” 1 Tim 1:15. I assume that he was correct in his analysis of the situation–that he was responsible for the deaths of some believers. However, in my opinion, it is more likely than not that his responsibility was as one overseeing or encouraging such killings, not actually physically carrying them out."

Talk is cheap.

For example, when Solomon admonished someone who had wronged King David, he said to them “You know in your heart all of the wrong that you did to my father David.”

We are on the same page.

I honestly think however it's a bit broader than that. Imagine someone just trusting in the God they can't see and possibly never even heard of. Based on Jesus being the Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth, God and Jesus being one, and Abraham's and all the Profits and righteous people who died before Jesus, I think the faith part is more important than knowing the complete story and the names of all the players.

He may not have done the deed himself, but I figure there is enough evidence to convict him in a murder case. Doesn't matter in the least however since sin is of the heart and not necessarily in the act and he was saved afterward anyway.

A person can clearly know in their heart something that is also written down on a tablet (as it were). There are internal and external witnesses.

Scripture says that the moral law is written upon all our hearts so that no one is without excuse. What was the excuse? That a person had not seen the written form of the law.

You have gathered enough evidence from vague scripture
to make a murder wrap stick?..LoL...😂

Yea I suppose, but if you and I go somewhere to kill somebody even if I'm the only one to throw a rock, you will still go down for it right alongside me.

That would be "rap", not "wrap". Just in case you wanted to sound smart.

Christianity on the Campfire...

Don't get too close to the coals.

You need to prove "intent" to convict Saul.
and meet the required std of evidence.
And you are relying on vague questionable
details from antiquity from an anonymous
author.
No judge would entertain your foolishness.

Why debate scripture with a guy who doesn’t believe in it?

Something cannot be deemed true just because it is written in old scrolls.

Something is not necessarily true because people believe it to be true.

A certain standard of evidence is needed to prove a proposition.

Just that it is written and believed does not necessarily make it so.

Clark is debating modern criminal law according
to his faith in the scripture ..a sure recipe for disaster.

I'm not arguing with you about it anymore. Like I said it's a moot point. They did however lay their garments at Paul's feet when they stoned Stephen. At that time Paul was in line to become the next high priest. It is reasonable that he condoned the stoning or perhaps ordered it since he was the one charged to arrest Christians.

Good , coz You don't have anything of substance
that would stand in a modern judicial system
when trying to convict for murder.

When I used the term “we” I meant those that share the same rational, logical and skeptical thought process – there’s lots of us out there. You appear to not want to be accused as being part of that group.

Provide proof that a scientist has performed, or arranged, an abortion because the fetus didn’t believe in science.

That’s a typical response when the believer is confronted with the harsh realities of the failures of their belief system and they become desperately defensive, aggressive and divisive.

hint...