Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Here’s an example of a persecution of a Christian --- in this case by another Christian. This is strictly a persecution by the use of rhetoric, not physical violence. One can even revise Galatians 1:13 to satisfy the case at hand ---

… that beyond exceeding measure Tertullian was persecuting the church of Marcion and was trying to destroying it.

robert j wrote:Here’s an example of a persecution of a Christian --- in this case by another Christian. This is strictly a persecution by the use of rhetoric, not physical violence. One can even revise Galatians 1:13 to satisfy the case at hand ---

… that beyond exceeding measure Tertullian was persecuting the church of Marcion and was trying to destroying it.

Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the wagon-life of the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus… Almighty God, is mangled by Marcion's blasphemies. Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region. For what beaver was ever a greater emasculator than he who has abolished the nuptial bond? What Pontic mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the Gospels to pieces? (Tertullian, Adv Marc, Book 1, chapter 1)

Marcion drew CRITICISM for his perceived heretical theology. That is not anyone being persecuted.

That is NOT and example of Jew on Christian persecution.

outhouse wrote:

robert j wrote:Here’s an example of a persecution of a Christian --- in this case by another Christian. This is strictly a persecution by the use of rhetoric, not physical violence. One can even revise Galatians 1:13 to satisfy the case at hand ---

… that beyond exceeding measure Tertullian was persecuting the church of Marcion and was trying to destroying it.

Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the wagon-life of the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus… Almighty God, is mangled by Marcion's blasphemies. Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region. For what beaver was ever a greater emasculator than he who has abolished the nuptial bond? What Pontic mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the Gospels to pieces? (Tertullian, Adv Marc, Book 1, chapter 1)

Marcion drew CRITICISM for his perceived heretical theology. That is not anyone being persecuted.

And Paul claimed to have persecuted early believers in JC because of perceived heretical theology.

I'm not going to get into a debate over semantics on what involves persecution, or let this little distraction (which I posted mostly because it amuses me) become the issue. I repeat ---

The challenge that has been posed to you is to support your assertion of violence by providing evidence from Paul's (seven) letters that his persecution of early believers in Jesus Christ involved violence --- without resorting to some translations of Galatians 1:13 that add the word "violently" when the word does not occur in the Greek text.

So far, you have not done so. Why not just admit that your opinion is influenced by the "traditions" in Acts?

robert j wrote: I'm not going to get into a debate over semantics on what involves persecution, or let this little distraction (which I posted mostly because it amuses me) become the issue. I repeat ---

The challenge that has been posed to you is to support your assertion of violence by providing evidence from Paul's (seven) letters that his persecution of early believers in Jesus Christ involved violence --- without resorting to some translations of Galatians 1:13 that add the word "violently" when the word does not occur in the Greek text.

So far, you have not done so.

You said it you refuse to debate.

Paul tells us he persecuted the followers violently, and I posted evidence you refuse to address even in a small part. YOU hold the minority view and I hold the academic view even Erhman stands behind.

Paul tells us explicitly he persecuted, and every other example from this time period shows violence in such. These were not freaken liberal scumbags. These were barbaric people.

Galatians

In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul indicates several times that the Jews have persecuted Christians, beginning with his admission of his own persecution of the Christians prior to his conversion (Gal 4:29) and ending with his suggestion that he is presently being persecuted because he no longer preaches circumcision (Gal 5:11). This may be one of the stronger proofs of such persecution, as Mark's admission of guilt would be foolish and nonsensical if there were not actually a widespread persecution of Christians by Jews. Few people seeking converts to their cause, would do so by falsely admitting to a crime.

\

I asked for examples and I did not get any.

Here are examples

The New Testament states that Paul was himself imprisoned on several occasions by Roman authorities, stoned by Pharisees and left for dead on one occasion, and was eventually taken as a prisoner to Rome. Peter and other early Christians were also imprisoned, beaten and harassed

And if we look at acts it gets more explicit.

And you cannot say Acts is solely dependent on Pauline text.

outhouse wrote:

robert j wrote: I'm not going to get into a debate over semantics on what involves persecution, or let this little distraction (which I posted mostly because it amuses me) become the issue. I repeat ---

The challenge that has been posed to you is to support your assertion of violence by providing evidence from Paul's (seven) letters that his persecution of early believers in Jesus Christ involved violence --- without resorting to some translations of Galatians 1:13 that add the word "violently" when the word does not occur in the Greek text.

So far, you have not done so.

You said it you refuse to debate.

Nice try. But yes, I should have been more specific --- I meant that I was not interested in a debate over semantics about whether Tertullian's verbal attacks on Marcion constitute "persecution"

outhouse wrote:Paul tells us he persecuted the followers violently, and I posted evidence you refuse to address even in a small part.

You have not provided relevant evidence from Paul's letters that that his persecution of early believers in JC involved violence.

outhouse wrote: YOU hold the minority view and I hold the academic view even Erhman stands behind.

An appeal to authority will not help you here.

Since you are unable to support your assertion of Paul's violence by providing relevant evidence from Paul's (seven) letters that his persecution of early believers in Jesus Christ involved violence --- without resorting to some translations of Galatians 1:13 that add the word "violently" when the word does not occur in the Greek text --- or admit that your opinion is influenced by Acts --- I have to conclude that you are incorrigible on the issue and I am not going to spend any more time amid the futility.

Jewish violence on early Christians is not up for debate, it took place.

The amount of violence Paul committed against Christians unknown but there. Its my personal opinion he has blood on his hands and was a murderer.

Statements like Surely you have heard of how bad I screwed over these people, is strong evidence combined with all the violence said to have taken place.

YOU do not get throw Acts away completely as being devoid of evidence.

You have not refuted anything that would wash Pauls hands clean of blood. You do not have the high road either.

Stephens stoning may have taken place, and if so Paul holding coats instead of throwing stones was the rhetorical prose to soften up rhetoric against Paul in his time and after. He probably took part in killing Stephen.

outhouse wrote:Stephens stoning may have taken place, and if so Paul holding coats instead of throwing stones was the rhetorical prose to soften up rhetoric against Paul in his time and after. He probably took part in killing Stephen.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence
violence
2 Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.
‘the violence of her own feelings’
NB .' Blood ' is not necessary for the justified use of the word ' violence'