"The stoning of Stephen - Why were the Jews allowed to stone Stephen but had to go through Pilate to kill Jesus?"

OLAADEGBU:
"The stoning of Stephen - Why were the Jews allowed to stone Stephen but had to go through Pilate to kill Jesus?"

Maybe it was a question of popularity. In many instances, they would have done same to Jesus but for trying not to incite the people. It's like a common thief that suffers jungle justice and a more popular one that goes through the process.
This does not in anyway relegate Stephen's heavenly reward

OLAADEGBU:
"The stoning of Stephen - Why were the Jews allowed to stone Stephen but had to go through Pilate to kill Jesus?"

Olaadegbu, you know as well as we all do, that Stephen was an easy and softer target.

Remember that stones were actually picked up to kill Jesus too
but they couldn't go through with it
Even attempted assasinations, were made on Him, like trying to push Jesus off a cliff

Why they had to go through Pilate, is to legitimise or legally have Jesus killed albeit get him on trumped up charges that will warrant a death sentence

Stephen too was sentenced to death on trumped charges without needing Pilate involved
but then Stephen wasn't as big as Jesus to cause a civil unrest and uprising, like grabbing and killing Jesus without a mock trial would have done

Lekmusic:


Maybe it was a question of popularity. In many instances, they would have done same to Jesus but for trying not to incite the people. It's like a common thief that suffers jungle justice and a more popular one that goes through the process.
This does not in anyway relegate Stephen's heavenly reward

Which one of the two executions compares with jungle justice?

OLAADEGBU:
"The stoning of Stephen - Why were the Jews allowed to stone Stephen but had to go through Pilate to kill Jesus?"

Interesting and cunning phraseology of your question. Perhaps you should ask Paul the great progenitor of Christianity, indeed, if the NT accounts are to be believed then Paul together with his henchmen arranged the stoning of Stephen. Jewish historians also tell us that Paul or Saul as he was then known also made several attempts on the life of James-the brother of Jesus. What odds would you give that if Jesus were alive at the time of Paul he would not have had him killed too? It is clear he took the law into his own hands.

Sarassin:


Interesting and cunning phraseology of your question. Perhaps you should ask Paul the great progenitor of Christianity, indeed, if the NT accounts are to be believed then Paul together with his henchmen arranged the stoning of Stephen. Jewish historians also tell us that Paul or Saul as he was then known also made several attempts on the life of James-the brother of Jesus. What odds would you give that if Jesus were alive at the time of Paul he would not have had him killed too? It is clear he took the law into his own hands.

Mia Caro, It is said that Saul was a Pharisee of Pharisees. He was only trying to protect what he felt was a diversion of men from the Mosaic Law, but when the Master met with him, he succumbed totally to his dying day.

And, about him taking the law into his hands, that is not true. The authority or the government of the day gave him warrants to go to cities in Judea and outside Judea to arrest and bring back Christians for imprisonment.

He was embarking on one of such missions when the Master met him.

Saul the Pharisee, became Apostle Paul.

Emmanystone:


.......And, about him taking the law into his hands, that is not true. The authority or the government of the day gave him warrants to go to cities in Judea and outside Judea to arrest and bring back Christians for imprisonment.

He was embarking on one of such missions when the Master met him.

Cara Mia, you said it yourself. Paul's remit was to arrest Christians and bring them back for imprisonment, yet we know that he arranged the killings of many Christians, Stephen included according to the NT. This is what i meant when i said that he took the law into his own hands.

I think also he would probably have killed Jesus himself if the opportunity arose....don't you?

Sarassin:


Cara Mia, you said it yourself. Paul's remit was to arrest Christians and bring them back for imprisonment, yet we know that he arranged the killings of many Christians, Stephen included according to the NT. This is what i meant when i said that he took the law into his own hands.

I think also he would probably have killed Jesus himself if the opportunity arose....don't you?

But that was before he became Paul.

Caro mia, we all have done things we are not proud of in ignorance, but the LIGHT came, we saw our wretchedness and turned away.

The Master forgave him because, like everyone else 'He knew not what he did'.

And, he suffered dearly remember. He suffered more than what he made Christians to suffer and he died by beheading (if am not wrong).

He paid for his crimes, but thank God, heaven welcomed him at last.

Emmanystone:

But that was before he became Paul.

Caro mia, we all have done things we are not proud of in ignorance, but the LIGHT came, we saw our wretchedness and turned away.

The Master forgave him because, like everyone else 'He knew not what he did'.

And, he suffered dearly remember. He suffered more than what he made Christians to suffer and he died by beheading (if am not wrong).

He paid for his crimes, but thank God, heaven welcomed him at last.

On the above I agree with you for once (isn't it nice when we agree?).

The issue really is with the OP who very craftily is trying to give the impression that it was a collective act of the Jews to have Stephen stoned to death conveniently ignoring the fact that it was the singular actions of Paul that led to Stephen’s death.

So, Cara mia, to answer the man’s question, the history of the Christian Church tells us that by the time of the second temple, the Romans had abrogated the Jewish practice of capital punishment by stoning, and even before this ruling, the Sanhedrin had not condemned a man to death by stoning for more than seventy years, (it was on their statutes but never enforced)

Therefore, if we are to accept the accounts of the NT killing of Stephen, we must then accept that the Sanhedrin, of whom Paul was indeed a hatchet-man would never have condoned the stoning of Stephen, therefore Paul’s arranged killing of Stephen was extra-judicial and not the collective decision of the Jewish authorities.

Sarassin:


On the above I agree with you for once (isn't it nice when we agree?).

The issue really is with the OP who very craftily is trying to give the impression that it was a collective act of the Jews to have Stephen stoned to death conveniently ignoring the fact that it was the singular actions of Paul that led to Stephen’s death.

So, Cara mia, to answer the man’s question, the history of the Christian Church tells us that by the time of the second temple, the Romans had abrogated the Jewish practice of capital punishment by stoning, and even before this ruling, the Sanhedrin had not condemned a man to death by stoning for more than seventy years, (it was on their statutes but never enforced)

Therefore, if we are to accept the accounts of the NT killing of Stephen, we must then accept that the Sanhedrin, of whom Paul was indeed a hatchet-man would never have condoned the stoning of Stephen, therefore Paul’s arranged killing of Stephen was extra-judicial and not the collective decision of the Jewish authorities.

Mia Caro, I get the point you are trying to make, but as i have always noted, you have your own issues with Paul which i'm yet to unravel, hence; i will say, you are not completely correct.
If the Jews had abrogated the punishment by stoning, the Pharisees who were the custodians of that Law couldn't have attempted stoning Jesus publicly repeatedly.

The attempted stoning of the women caught in adultery wasn't done in secrete, it was in public and in the day light. And, remember everywhere Jesus went, a great crowd followed Him, so if that Law was abrogated, the Jews who attempted to stone her would have tried to do so privately.

Apostle Paul was a man of the Law, he never broke the Mosiac Law and was very zealous to protect the law which he spent years studying under Professor Gamaleel, he couldn't have acted on his own volition to have Stephen killed.

You make it seem like Paul had a personal vendetta against Stephen, no. Just like every Jew, he did his best to keep the Jewish law from what he then termed heresy until the Master Himself intervened and stopped him.

After his conversion, didn't the other Jews continue with what they thought was right, by killing Christians?

Saul was Just zealous for his religion that's all. The same place Saul was, is the same place most Islamic Jihadist are today, and we hear many testimonies of conversions of these folks, and the Lord forgives them, Why? becos, INDEED, THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.

Until recently, i didn't truly know what Jesus meant by that, but now, I know.
No one will knowingly fight himself. For fighting God, is fighting yourself.

Emmanystone:

Mia Caro, I get the point you are trying to make, but as i have always noted, you have your own issues with Paul which i'm yet to unravel, hence; i will say, you are not completely correct.
If the Jews had abrogated the punishment by stoning, the Pharisees who were the custodians of that Law couldn't have attempted stoning Jesus publicly repeatedly.

The attempted stoning of the women caught in adultery wasn't done in secrete, it was in public and in the day light. And, remember everywhere Jesus went, a great crowd followed Him, so if that Law was abrogated, the Jews who attempted to stone her would have tried to do so privately.

Apostle Paul was a man of the Law, he never broke the Mosiac Law and was very zealous to protect the law which he spent years studying under Professor Gamaleel, he couldn't have acted on his own volition to have Stephen killed.

You make it seem like Paul had a personal vendetta against Stephen, no. Just like every Jew, he did his best to keep the Jewish law from what he then termed heresy until the Master Himself intervened and stopped him.

After his conversion, didn't the other Jews continue with what they thought was right, by killing Christians?

Saul was Just zealous for his religion that's all. The same place Saul was, is the same place most Islamic Jihadist are today, and we hear many testimonies of conversions of these folks, and the Lord forgives them, Why? becos, INDEED, THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.

Until recently, i didn't truly know what Jesus meant by that, but now, I know.
No one will knowingly fight himself. For fighting God, is fighting yourself.

Believe it or not, I have no issues with Paul beyond what Paul himself presents.

You see you fall into the same trap as the OP, you say that Paul never broke Mosaic Law surely you are having a giggle? Do you remember that Mosaic Law, “Thou shalt not kill? You then say that Paul could never have had Stephen killed of his own volition, what is your justification for that statement? Where does Mosaic Law state that non-adherents of Judaism are to be killed?

We should not confuse the actions of a lynch mob with Law. In Nigeria today I am sure it is against the law to lynch a thief, but guess what happens when a thief is caught? A tyre is thrown around his neck irrespective of the law.
It is the same in the instances you provided with the woman taken in Adultery and the lynch mob that wanted to stone Jesus to death, but unilateral action does not constitute law.

Of course Stephen was targeted by Paul, I simply state the facts as they are, I demonstrated to you that Rome had outlawed death by stoning therefore the Sanhedrin would not disobey their Roman overlords by passing a ruling authorising death by stoning, you said it yourself that Paul had been commissioned to arrest Christians and bring them to “justice” therefore the only questions that needs answering here is; Why did Paul have Stephen killed? and what are the motives of the OP in trying to make it sound like it was a collective decision of the Jewish hierarchy?

Sarassin:

Believe it or not, I have no issues with Paul beyond what Paul himself presents.

Your former inferences speaks differently sir.

Sarassin:

You see you fall into the same trap as the OP, you say that Paul never broke Mosaic Law surely you are having a giggle? Do you remember that Mosaic Law, “Thou shalt not kill? You then say that Paul could never have had Stephen killed of his own volition, what is your justification for that statement? Where does Mosaic Law state that non-adherents of Judaism are to be killed?

Now, you quote that scripture wrongly sir. Killing a man innocently is what that scripture is saying. That same Law says, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Meaning, if you kill a man, you should be killed in retaliation to easpe for his blood.
This is why a city of refuge was created for anyone who accidentally kills someone to run to until the high priest dies.

The Lord ordered that anyone who serves an idol should be killed.

Good News Translation Exodus 22:20
“Condemn to death anyone who offers sacrifices to any god except to me, the Lord.
There are offences which warranted dead as a consequence. And the Jews till today view the Christians as idol worshippers, hence moved to enact their law against them.
It was on this pedestal that Saul was moved with zeal to cleanse his religion of the heretical Christians.

Sarassin:

We should not confuse the actions of a lynch mob with Law. In Nigeria today I am sure it is against the law to lynch a thief, but guess what happens when a thief is caught? A tyre is thrown around his neck irrespective of the law.

The inference you draw here comparing the Nigerian very lawless society, a society which is sliding into anarchy with that of the Jewish society which had two governments (Political and religious) ruling over them simultaneously, does not fit sir.
As much as the Roman government administrated over Judea, the Jews also kept strictly to the Laws handed down by Moses. The Law was very stringent and saw to it that every offender severely gets punished for defaulting.

Up until recently, thieves in Nigeria were not lynched the way it is done today. Our law enforcement agencies don't care, that's why anarchy seems to take over our streets, but that wasn't the case with the then Judean society.

If was a lynching as you try to pass it off, the consent of Jesus wouldn't be sort before the mob would carry out their lawless act.

Sarassin:

It is the same in the instances you provided with the woman taken in Adultery and the lynch mob that wanted to stone Jesus to death, but unilateral action does not constitute law.

You mean the Jews who attempted to Stone the adulterous woman did that against the law, yet brought her in the full glare of the public eye to see and hear what Judgement Jesus would give?

What then will you say about the governments both Roman and Jewish, which gave Saul the warrant to arrest and bring down Christians to be imprisoned and killed?

My point is, Saul acted on the strength of the government, not solely on his volition.

Sarassin:

Of course Stephen was targeted by Paul, I simply state the facts as they are, I demonstrated to you that Rome had outlawed death by stoning therefore the Sanhedrin would not disobey their Roman overlords by passing a ruling authorising death by stoning, you said it yourself that Paul had been commissioned to arrest Christians and bring them to “justice” therefore the only questions that needs answering here is; Why did Paul have Stephen killed?

The Sanhedrins condemned Stephen to death, not Saul.

Acts 7:54-60 NIV.
[b]When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.]/b]

Saul did not target Stephen as if he nursed a grudge, no. Here;
English Standard Version
And when the blood of Stephen your witness was being shed, I myself was standing by and approving and watching over the garments of those who killed him.’
He consented to Stephens killing doesn't actually make him Stephen's murderer sir.

Sarassin:

and what are the motives of the OP in trying to make it sound like it was a collective decision of the Jewish hierarchy?

because it was.

Bottom line, Saul did what he did in ignorance. The one he sinned against forgave him, called him into ministry. Nothing is held against him now. Besides, he suffered more than the Christians he persecuted.

Let us lay down our swords, Paul is up with his master.

He had this twstimony to share

2 Timothy:4:7-8
I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

So, let us do our best to have a testimony like his.

I rest my case.

Emmanystone:

Your former inferences speaks differently sir.

I try to be fair. There are instances where I do not agree with what Paul purportedly said or did and I point them out, this does not amount to having issues. For instance you wrote that Paul studied under Gamaliel but we know that this is simply not true.

Emmanystone:

Now, you quote that scripture wrongly sir. Killing a man innocently is what that scripture is saying. That same Law says, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Meaning, if you kill a man, you should be killed in retaliation to easpe for his blood.
This is why a city of refuge was created for anyone who accidentally kills someone to run to until the high priest dies.

The Lord ordered that anyone who serves an idol should be killed.

I see, so it is “Thou shalt not kill” except, except, except….

Emmanystone:
The Sanhedrins condemned Stephen to death, not Saul.

No, you are wrong. The Sanhedrin was a competent court. No vote took place, there was no sentence passed. And even if a sentence was passed unrecorded then it could not be "death by stoning" because it had been outlawed, it is a very simple concept. Paul did not merely consent to the killing of Stephen in the NT, he instigated it, Paul was the enforcer of the Saducees, Stephen was killed by his boys his “Oraisa’s” as you call them there, Paul could have called them off at anytime. He was clearly complicit.

Emmanystone:

Bottom line, Saul did what he did in ignorance. The one he sinned against forgave him, called him into ministry. Nothing is held against him now. Besides, he suffered more than the Christians he persecuted.

The issue here is stoning and its legality not whether Christians were killed or not and not whether Paul was forgiven or not. Paul arrogated to himself the power of judge and jury, he took the law into his own hands and in the very least Paul was an accomplice to murder and we should not defend the indefensible because he is laying in the bosom of Jesus.

Galilee of the Gentiles, Nazarene and Nazareth.... just do a lil research on these vis a vis the disciples of Jesus and their features
.....when Peter denied Jesus before the cock crowed during the crucifixion , one of the guards had said" surely thou hath one of them, thy tongue betrayed thee....". what was he talking about. Could St Stephen, Jesus , Peter etc have been speaking a different tongue from the Jewish?

Sarassin:

I try to be fair. There are instances where I do not agree with what Paul purportedly said or did and I point them out, this does not amount to having issues.

That's okay. It is your prerogative who or what to believe about people.

Sarassin:

For instance you wrote that Paul studied under Gamaliel but we know that this is simply not true.

Here is my authority, and i choose to go with it rather with you. Am sorry love.

Acts:22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day
Question: What prompted Paul to give this speech?

He was standing accused of breaking the Jewish law which to the Jews was punishable by death and he was going to be killed for it. Here he stands before all who knew him. The Sanhedrins, the Pharisees, the Chief prieats and High Priests in their Temple, in defence of his act. Should we allow ourselves to suggest that Paul, knowing the gravity of what was against him, and before whom he stood, lie about being a student under Gamaliel, who was alive at the time? Comeone. Was Saul a stranger to them? Wasn't he their former 'hatchet man' as you put it?

Note, that he stands accused of something, do you think lying before all these who knew him will release from the accusation held against him or plunge him deeper into trouble?

Integrity accounted at that very moment, hence, Paul couldn't claim studying under the great man if he indeed wasn't.

Sarassin:

it is “Thou shalt not kill” except, except, except…. I see,

YES, EXCEPT, the One who gave the command 'Thou shall not Kill, tells you by HIMSELF to do otherwise.

You have no right to take revenge against anyone except The LORD DEMANDS that that be done. He is the King over His realm. Whether a man dies or lives is His choice to make.
Daniel 4: 35
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Sarassin:

No, you are wrong. The Sanhedrin was a competent court. No vote took place, there was no sentence passed. And even if a sentence was passed unrecorded then it could not be "death by stoning" because it had been outlawed, it is a very simple concept. Paul did not merely consent to the killing of Stephen in the NT, he instigated it, Paul was the enforcer of the Saducees, Stephen was killed by his boys his “Oraisa’s” as you call them there, Paul could have called them off at anytime. He was clearly complicit

Again, i go with the Scriptures Sir.

(Acts 7:54-60 NIV)
When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Read that passage very well sir. Stephen stood judgement before the Court of the Sanhedrin. He found him guilty by reason of what they considered blasphemy. Who were the ones who covered their ears to keep from hearing the proclaimation of Stephen? The Sanhedrins. Who shouted on top of their vouces to drawn the voice of Stephen? The Sanhedrins.
Before who did the people rush with rage and dragged Stephen out of the city? The Sanhedrins.

Who then sentenced Stephen to death? Paul or the Sanhedrins? Paul merely kept the clothes of those who did the killing safe. He didn't have the authority you ascribe to him.

Sarassin:

The issue here is stoning and its legality not whether Christians were killed or not and not whether Paul was forgiven or not. Paul arrogated to himself the power of judge and jury, he took the law into his own hands and in the very least Paul was an accomplice to murder and we should not defend the indefensible because he is laying in the bosom of Jesus.

This is contrary to what the scripture says. Without the Bible account, we won't even know anything about Stephens stoning, thus, for us to bring in extra Biblical accounts to oppose what the scriptures states, can be an attempt to present things in a false light.

Everything that transpired happened before the court of the sanhedrins. False witnesses were brought to lay fasle accusations against Stephen. Lack of cohenrency was the problem of the witnesses, but even at that, the court was going to find him guilty anyway and they did.


What was pauls part in all of these?

Babacele:
Galilee of the Gentiles, Nazarene and Nazareth.... just do a lil research on these vis a vis the disciples of Jesus and their features
.....when Peter denied Jesus before the cock crowed during the crucifixion , one of the guards had said" surely thou hath one of them, thy tongue betrayed thee....". what was he talking about. Could St Stephen, Jesus , Peter etc have been speaking a different tongue from the Jewish?

They all Spoke Aramaic, but i think with a bit of dialectical slur.

Emmanystone:

They all Spoke Aramaic, but i think with a bit of dialectical slur.

yes but they spoke a different language not understood by the Jews because they are Essenes.

Babacele:
yes but they spoke a different language not understood by the Jews because they are Essenes.

I doubt that they spoke an entirely different language. They spoke the same language.

The verse says, your speech betrays you, not your language.

Emmanystone:

I doubt that they spoke an entirely different language. They spoke the same language.

The verse says, your speech betrays you, not your language.

thy tongue betrayed thee,though hath one of them...
....this clearly shows something about being not from the main. Why would they use such expression on a fellow Jew?

Babacele:
thy tongue betrayed thee,though hath one of them...
....this clearly shows something about being not from the main. Why would they use such expression on a fellow Jew?

Am still sure it's not a different language entirely. I think it has to do with the dialectical differences.

New International Version Matt 26:73.

After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away."

New Living Translation
A little later some of the other bystanders came over to Peter and said, "You must be one of them; we can tell by your Galilean accent."

Emmanystone:

Am still sure it's not a different language entirely. I think it has to do with the dialectical differences.

New International Version Matt 26:73.

After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away."

New Living Translation
A little later some of the other bystanders came over to Peter and said, "You must be one of them; we can tell by your Galilean accent."
Peter like Jesus was a Galilean , so ask me why would a fellow Jew say " thy tongue hath betrayed thee" or do we have different sets of Jews or kinds of Jewish language? Why was it called Galilee of the Gentiles?

so what is it about' Galilee of the gentiles' or Galilean accent that will single

Babacele:
so what is it about' Galilee of the gentiles' or Galilean accent that will single

Yorubas in Nigeria speaks the language, but if an Ogun man speaks, an Ekiti man will spot him out.

They all spoke Aramaic, but dialectical accents.

Babacele:
so what is it about' Galilee of the gentiles' or Galilean accent that will single

There's nno clue Jesus used an interpreter with his Apostles, even with the disciples who came from every where.

Aramaic was widely Spoken.

Emmanystone:

Yorubas in Nigeria speaks the language, but if an Ogun man speaks, an Ekiti man will spot him out.

They all spoke Aramaic, but dialectical accents.

I understand you bro but the Jewish language isn't like the yoruba....and for the most important person from the house of David being a Galilean does not make sense.... Jesus was most educated and could speak several languages fluently including Greek and Aramaic and many others not necessary of mention here. Like Samson, John the Baptist, Yeshua, Stephen and like others whose only sin was being a Nazarene

Babacele:
I understand you bro but the Jewish language isn't like the yoruba....and for the most important person from the house of David being a Galilean does not make sense.... Jesus was most educated and could speak several languages fluently including Greek and Aramaic and many others not necessary of mention here. Like Samson, John the Baptist, Yeshua, Stephen and like others whose only sin was being a Nazarene

Lolzzz where did you get the bolded from? I don't believe in Extra Biblical speculations. The Word of God is enough for me.
Mark 6:3
Then they scoffed, "He's just a carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us." They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him

New American Standard Bible
The Jews then were astonished, saying, "How has this man become learned, having never been educated?"

Trust me if Jesus Christ attended School which were not as common as they are today, his contemporaries will know and won't be in doubt.

Emmanystone:


Acts:22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day
Question: What prompted Paul to give this speech?

He was standing accused of breaking the Jewish law which to the Jews was punishable by death and he was going to be killed for it. Here he stands before all who knew him. The Sanhedrins, the Pharisees, the Chief prieats and High Priests in their Temple, in defence of his act. Should we allow ourselves to suggest that Paul, knowing the gravity of what was against him, and before whom he stood, lie about being a student under Gamaliel, who was alive at the time? Comeone. Was Saul a stranger to them? Wasn't he their former 'hatchet man' as you put it?

Note, that he stands accused of something, do you think lying before all these who knew him will release from the accusation held against him or plunge him deeper into trouble?

Integrity accounted at that very moment, hence, Paul couldn't claim studying under the great man if he indeed wasn't.

You say Paul was a “Pharisee of Pharisees” and studied under Gamaliel. Thank God we know about Gamaliel from contemporary historical accounts as well as other religious writings such as the Mishnah if not for that you Christians will continue to pull the wool over our eyes.

We know about Gamaliel who was a highly respected figure, he was given the title 'Rabban', as the leading sage of his day. He was the highest ranking Pharisee leader in the Sanhedrin in fact at one point he was the president of the court. We know that Paul was full of talk and bombast it is not unusual that he would claim a relationship with Gamaliel simply to enhance his standing, in his own words, Paul was “all things to all men”. In Paul's defence he never actually states in his own words that he studied under Gamaliel, what you have is the author of Acts putting words into Paul's own mouth, so in fact the possibility exists that Paul is entirely blameless in this instance.

Cast your mind back to when Peter stood accused before the Sanhedrin on trial for his life, who stood up for him to plead on his behalf when the Saducees wanted him dead? of course it was Gamaliel the leader of the Pharisees (Acts 5), when the votes were cast all the Pharisees voted in favour of sparing him except one notable “Pharisee of Pharisees” who voted with the Saducees to have Peter condemned to death.

So ask yourself why would Paul out of all the Pharisees cast a single dissenting vote even against his own so-called “teacher”?

How is it that Paul had such a burning Pharisaical zeal that he would have Christians condemned to death but the majority of Pharisees in actuality were quite friendly and tolerant towards Christians and mostly regarded them as an oddity?

So you see my darling, as much as I adore you, I believe you and your scriptures are wrong, Paul was no Pharisee, and he could not have studied under Gamaliel, Gamaliel did not teach children. Why would the Saducee Chief Priest grant special dispensation to a Pharisee (The Saducees hated the Pharisees) to wander around arresting Christians if not that first and foremost Paul was a trusted Saducee and Herodian family member to boot?

Emmanystone:

This is contrary to what the scripture says. Without the Bible account, we won't even know anything about Stephens stoning, thus, for us to bring in extra Biblical accounts to oppose what the scriptures states, can be an attempt to present things in a false light.

@bolded is so true. There is no contemporary evidence whatsoever for the death of Stephen by stoning, this is why the story makes no sense to biblical scholars, there is no internal corroboration in the NT either, it is not attested by any other gospel writer. But we know that something did happen. Historical accounts tell us that it was in fact James "brother of the Lord" and leader of the Jerusalem church NOT Stephen who was attacked by Paul's henchmen whilst preaching on the steps of the temple, he was badly injured and whisked to safety by his helpers to the caves at Qumran.

Sarassin:
You say Paul was a “Pharisee of Pharisees” and studied under Gamaliel. Thank God we know about Gamaliel from contemporary historical accounts as well as other religious writings such as the Mishnah if not for that you Christians will continue to pull the wool over our eyes.

...

This one got me on the floor

I love your writing style, lemme try and imitate it. Where have you been? nairaland looses interest when you no dey

Sarassin:


You say Paul was a “Pharisee of Pharisees” and studied under Gamaliel. Thank God we know about Gamaliel from contemporary historical accounts as well as other religious writings such as the Mishnah if not for that you Christians will continue to pull the wool over our eyes.

We know about Gamaliel who was a highly respected figure, he was given the title 'Rabban', as the leading sage of his day. He was the highest ranking Pharisee leader in the Sanhedrin in fact at one point he was the president of the court. We know that Paul was full of talk and bombast it is not unusual that he would claim a relationship with Gamaliel simply to enhance his standing, in his own words, Paul was “all things to all men”. In Paul's defence he never actually states in his own words that he studied under Gamaliel, what you have is the author of Acts putting words into Paul's own mouth, so in fact the possibility exists that Paul is entirely blameless in this instance.

Cast your mind back to when Peter stood accused before the Sanhedrin on trial for his life, who stood up for him to plead on his behalf when the Saducees wanted him dead? of course it was Gamaliel the leader of the Pharisees (Acts 5), when the votes were cast all the Pharisees voted in favour of sparing him except one notable “Pharisee of Pharisees” who voted with the Saducees to have Peter condemned to death.

So ask yourself why would Paul out of all the Pharisees cast a single dissenting vote even against his own so-called “teacher”?

How is it that Paul had such a burning Pharisaical zeal that he would have Christians condemned to death but the majority of Pharisees in actuality were quite friendly and tolerant towards Christians and mostly regarded them as an oddity?

So you see my darling, as much as I adore you, I believe you and your scriptures are wrong, Paul was no Pharisee, and he could not have studied under Gamaliel, Gamaliel did not teach children. Why would the Saducee Chief Priest grant special dispensation to a Pharisee (The Saducees hated the Pharisees) to wander around arresting Christians if not that first and foremost Paul was a trusted Saducee and Herodian family member to boot?



@bolded is so true. There is no contemporary evidence whatsoever for the death of Stephen by stoning, this is why the story makes no sense to biblical scholars, there is no internal corroboration in the NT either, it is not attested by any other gospel writer. But we know that something did happen. Historical accounts tell us that it was in fact James "brother of the Lord" and leader of the Jerusalem church NOT Stephen who was attacked by Paul's henchmen whilst preaching on the steps of the temple, he was badly injured and whisked to safety by his helpers to the caves at Qumran.

The bolded are true and he even mentioned his relative Herodotus in a greeting.

There's suspicion that James attack led to one final uprising where old Rome decided to end the Jewish state Judea.

Stephen was taken out of the town and stoned to death because he mentioned yahuah/ Yahweh in his speak repeatedly as it is a holy name that should not be pronounced except by high priest. This was a wrong doctrine because God never said so.
Jews were under roman government so Jewish authority has no power to kill except after approval by roman authority that was why it was done outside the city. And Saul being a lawyer help justify the killers.

OLAADEGBU:
"The stoning of Stephen - Why were the Jews allowed to stone Stephen but had to go through Pilate to kill Jesus?"

LoJ:

This one got me on the floor

I love your writing style, lemme try and imitate it. Where have you been? nairaland looses interest when you no dey

hehehe it made you laugh.

Just been a bit tied up lately.

correctguy101:



The bolded are true and he even mentioned his relative Herodotus in a greeting.

There's suspicion that James attack led to one final uprising where old Rome decided to end the Jewish state Judea.

Exactly. Just as Gamaliel predicted.