Doesn't Living Like the Devil After Being Saved Disprove Once Saved Always Saved?

[Omegatime]

Those that come out of the bowl judgments are all unrighteous. Sheep are only saved by works to those fleeing the antichrist. The sheep enter the millennial Kingdom with flesh and blood.

 

[rewriter]

I am not calling Paul a liar, he wrote with an eye on Roman censorship though, just as did, to a much greater extent, Luke and John when he rewrote the gospel that bears his name. Mark was also rewritten with an eye on Rome, Matthew might not have been reworked, but it was also written with awareness of Rome. Some difficult comments in Paul make sense in light of issues Romans would have spotted rapidly, but which could produce negative consequences for Christianity.

Thus, when one reads the NT, one must have a keen awareness of Roman sensibilities, what did Romans fear and what did Romans do. An awareness of just how unpopular Romans were is also helpful, Romans were the one group that could bring all other groups together, even traditional enemies would cooperate against Rome if they thought they had a realistic chance for success. Arabs and Jews cooperated circa 25 BCE when Rome wanted to annex Arabia Felix. Jews and Arabs both contributed troops to the expedition as well as knowledgeable guides. It took slightly over 6 months for the expedition to reach Felix Arabia, where they were defeated, but less than six weeks to get back to Roman territory.

One part of this is that in ancient times, writing was supposed to follow an established form. Matthew and Luke follow Greco-Roman biography style, with the required points being presented. Mark and John tend to baffle most scholars as to what style they follow though, from my studies, because they were rewritten to conceal inconvenient connections. Acts was written as a second part of the Luke-Acts saga, following the ode pattern established by Homer and other ancient writers, in this case allowing the gospel to follow Homer while Acts followed Virgil, and letting known events triggered by the gospel account be merely implied but not explicitly stated in Acts, as Acts had a different message

 

[Drich]

regardless of how they are written, this is what we are responsible for.Remember the parable of the talents, in that each servant was judged based on what they did with what they where given. It is not up to us to decide how the writers of the bible may or may not have been influenced by rome..

Besides Rome during the time the bible was being written had an active campaign to silence the church fathers. With what amounted to a death warrant already on their heads, why would you think, they would censor or dilute God message in any way?

 

[rewriter]

regardless of how they are written, this is what we are responsible for.Remember the parable of the talents, in that each servant was judged based on what they did with what they where given. It is not up to us to decide how the writers of the bible may or may not have been influenced by rome..

Besides Rome during the time the bible was being written had an active campaign to silence the church fathers. With what amounted to a death warrant already on their heads, why would you think, they would censor or dilute God message in any way?

But why was there an attempt to silence the church fathers? Might not they have taken action to deflect their death sentences without compromising what the believed by keeping essential teachings private, only for the enlightened, while making public statements in such a way as to deflect concerns?

There is a lot of evidence that the official version of history in the early church period is not exactly accurate, including why Christians were persecuted. Are you aware that there are at least three ancient sources that claim that Tiberius was willing to allow Christianity to be legal? This includes one source, plausibly dated to the mid 30's CE and reportedly written on behalf of a man named Tiberius Caesar. Details in this specific reference fit only for a very few years in the 30's CE.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

I just listened to this short and was reminded of this thread, so maybe someone will be blessed.

 

[Musicmaster]

Great use of condescending supposition.. However it is not consistent with what Jesus says in mat 25. Perhaps in your own theological frame work the term "will be in the body of christ." Means something other than at that moment of being "saved" (Identified/judged as being a "sheep) you will be allowed to enter heaven. As This is exactly what Jesus promises here in mat 25:
32 All the people of the world will be gathered before him. Then he will separate everyone into two groups. It will be like a shepherd separating his sheep from his goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Jesus said a number of things that will not ever apply to us of the body of Christ, a prime example being His instruction to one of the healed men to go and offer up sacrifice at the temple. Additionally, the present tense of His statements in relation to salvation are unmistakable:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

The present tense is, as stated, unmistakable. There's nothing condescending at all about pointing out the facts. There're more than enough people out there who always and forever look for offense in what others say, playing that card as a matter of routine, thus injecting into other's words a tone and meaning that's not at all representative of the truth. If we can't get past that nonsense, then this will never be productive.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I just listened to this short and was reminded of this thread, so maybe someone will be blessed.

Good point:

1 Corinthians 3:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

That clearly contradicts what so many people assume about James 2, which has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation loss. We see here Paul pointing to works, all of which will be burned, causing the Heavenly dweller to suffer loss, but he himself will still be saved...even though his faith was not "perfected" as pointed out in James 2.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I am not calling Paul a liar, he wrote with an eye on Roman censorship though, just as did, to a much greater extent, Luke and John when he rewrote the gospel that bears his name. Mark was also rewritten with an eye on Rome, Matthew might not have been reworked, but it was also written with awareness of Rome. Some difficult comments in Paul make sense in light of issues Romans would have spotted rapidly, but which could produce negative consequences for Christianity.

Thus, when one reads the NT, one must have a keen awareness of Roman sensibilities, what did Romans fear and what did Romans do. An awareness of just how unpopular Romans were is also helpful, Romans were the one group that could bring all other groups together, even traditional enemies would cooperate against Rome if they thought they had a realistic chance for success. Arabs and Jews cooperated circa 25 BCE when Rome wanted to annex Arabia Felix. Jews and Arabs both contributed troops to the expedition as well as knowledgeable guides. It took slightly over 6 months for the expedition to reach Felix Arabia, where they were defeated, but less than six weeks to get back to Roman territory.

One part of this is that in ancient times, writing was supposed to follow an established form. Matthew and Luke follow Greco-Roman biography style, with the required points being presented. Mark and John tend to baffle most scholars as to what style they follow though, from my studies, because they were rewritten to conceal inconvenient connections. Acts was written as a second part of the Luke-Acts saga, following the ode pattern established by Homer and other ancient writers, in this case allowing the gospel to follow Homer while Acts followed Virgil, and letting known events triggered by the gospel account be merely implied but not explicitly stated in Acts, as Acts had a different message

The foundational fallacies in this post are...multitudinous to say the least. I see in it hasty generalization / overreach from “censorship” as a universal explanation of Roman influences. It appears you're treating the text with an “eye on Roman censorship” as a sufficient cause for many claims about Paul's writings, all without showing it actually explains the specific content in a demonstrated, testable way.

Unfalsifiable motivation attribution: Saying the writer had an “eye on Roman censorship” (and then using that to explain away “difficult comments”) effectively makes the claim hard to disprove. If any evidence doesn’t fit, you can always say “it was motivated by censorship.” That just seems far too easy an escape.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (causal fallacy). The argument implies that because something looks like it could be connected to Roman issues, therefore it was produced because of those issues—without establishing that link as the actual causal driver. Perhaps you attempted to draw those lines of connection in your broader thesis you presented to that small number of scholars, but having seen many of the exhaustive expansions along various theological lines, it becomes a wearying exercise in retaining the critical thinking stance when bombarded with the barrage of trivial details of things that tend to hide or mask the errors within the constealation of premises.

Guilt by association / moral insinuation without evidence. The line “I am not calling Paul a liar” functions as an attempted inoculation while still implying something like dishonesty/strategic rewriting. That’s an insinuation fallacy: you hint at wrongdoing but avoid direct claims by presenting what cannot be presented, which is the original autographs against which to gauge the claims.

Texas sharpshooter / selective interpretation. You pointed to “some difficult comments” and then provides an interpretive framework (“Romans would have spotted rapidly”) that might fit those comments, while ignoring alternative readings or data that don’t support the framework.

Begging the question (assumes what needs to be proved). You presume a particular compositional/revision story (“rewritten with an eye on Rome,” “rewrote,” “reworked,” etc.) and then use that presumption to interpret the texts—so the revision hypothesis is doing the heavy lifting without independent support that drives home precise and verifiable indicators of errors in the TR.

False dilemma about authorship intent. Your wording suggests a binary: either the content makes sense in light of Roman censorship, or it doesn’t make sense, but there are many other explanations (theology, rhetoric, audience differences, textual transmission, genre conventions, later interpretive layers).

Red herring / scope shift. Even if “Roman censorship” were relevant, the argument slides from a historical possibility to a sweeping conclusion about what Paul (and others) must have been doing and why—without tying the evidence to the specific inference.

Finally (for this post), appeals to plausibility (appeal to reasonableness), presented as evidence. “Romans would have spotted rapidly” can read as a plausibility argument; plausible-sounding explanations aren’t automatically warranted explanations nor evidence for anything within the framework of your claims.

MM

 

[rewriter]

The foundational fallacies in this post are...multitudinous to say the least. I see in it hasty generalization / overreach from “censorship” as a universal explanation of Roman influences. It appears you're treating the text with an “eye on Roman censorship” as a sufficient cause for many claims about Paul's writings, all without showing it actually explains the specific content in a demonstrated, testable way.

Unfalsifiable motivation attribution: Saying the writer had an “eye on Roman censorship” (and then using that to explain away “difficult comments”) effectively makes the claim hard to disprove. If any evidence doesn’t fit, you can always say “it was motivated by censorship.” That just seems far too easy an escape.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (causal fallacy). The argument implies that because something looks like it could be connected to Roman issues, therefore it was produced because of those issues—without establishing that link as the actual causal driver. Perhaps you attempted to draw those lines of connection in your broader thesis you presented to that small number of scholars, but having seen many of the exhaustive expansions along various theological lines, it becomes a wearying exercise in retaining the critical thinking stance when bombarded with the barrage of trivial details of things that tend to hide or mask the errors within the constealation of premises.

Guilt by association / moral insinuation without evidence. The line “I am not calling Paul a liar” functions as an attempted inoculation while still implying something like dishonesty/strategic rewriting. That’s an insinuation fallacy: you hint at wrongdoing but avoid direct claims by presenting what cannot be presented, which is the original autographs against which to gauge the claims.

Texas sharpshooter / selective interpretation. You pointed to “some difficult comments” and then provides an interpretive framework (“Romans would have spotted rapidly”) that might fit those comments, while ignoring alternative readings or data that don’t support the framework.

Begging the question (assumes what needs to be proved). You presume a particular compositional/revision story (“rewritten with an eye on Rome,” “rewrote,” “reworked,” etc.) and then use that presumption to interpret the texts—so the revision hypothesis is doing the heavy lifting without independent support that drives home precise and verifiable indicators of errors in the TR.

False dilemma about authorship intent. Your wording suggests a binary: either the content makes sense in light of Roman censorship, or it doesn’t make sense, but there are many other explanations (theology, rhetoric, audience differences, textual transmission, genre conventions, later interpretive layers).

Red herring / scope shift. Even if “Roman censorship” were relevant, the argument slides from a historical possibility to a sweeping conclusion about what Paul (and others) must have been doing and why—without tying the evidence to the specific inference.

Finally (for this post), appeals to plausibility (appeal to reasonableness), presented as evidence. “Romans would have spotted rapidly” can read as a plausibility argument; plausible-sounding explanations aren’t automatically warranted explanations nor evidence for anything within the framework of your claims.

MM

Might I ask if you read the verse? Paul states that he is giving HIS opinion, not a message from God. Now there are two logical possibilities, one is that Paul is telling the truth and that it is not God's word that has been accepted into scripture, which means that not all scripture is God's word. The other is that all scripture is God's word and that makes God a liar, as He would have just denied His own statement.

As for the rest of your argument, please detail where in my FULL argument you find your flaws. Not potential flaws that you can see from a tiny fragment but specific detailed flaws.

What, you claim not to have seen my over 175 8 1/2x11 pages of text, so you really do not know what I am saying? Are you admitting to being so arrogant that you can dismiss something you never saw? I know it happens with some Christians, a few years ago an author noted that her most recent book was decried as pornographic and unfit to read by a Christian reviewer. The only problem being that even her publisher had not yet seen the work, so how could someone who had not read it know it was unfit for reading. Your comments fall into the same category, you really don't know what you are talking about, only that it might challenge your beliefs, but you do not like the idea of a challenge to your comfortable worldview.

Me. look at all these facts, including evidence that has not been tampered with for over 1950+ years, thus solid evidence from the early church era. You, covering your eyes and ears, I see nothing, I hear nothing, and since I cannot see it or hear it, it must not exist and I will keep my eyes and ears covered until the evidence goes away.

 

[Musicmaster]

Might I ask if you read the verse? Paul states that he is giving HIS opinion, not a message from God.

Yes, I have already pointed that out in a previous post. So, if I may, are you then applying that with far broader brush strokes than what the contextual limits provide? Therein is my inquiry about your take on it all...do you believe Paul lingually applied that to all his teachings throughout his epistles? In other words, how far are you pushing that statement of his?

What, you claim not to have seen my over 175 8 1/2x11 pages of text, so you really do not know what I am saying? Are you admitting to being so arrogant that you can dismiss something you never saw?

It appears you're bent upon ad hominem is a well poisoning ending to any potential for reasonable discussion. Having seen your bird's-eye view of that 175 page thesis compared to the Greek manuscripts in the simplicity of what they state in relation to the historic, cultural and lingual studies I've done through the years, my take on what I have not read of your thesis, and that you seem to take personally my unwillingness to read it, as I stated before, it's likely is a repeat of so many fallaciously lengthy treatise, of which I have read many, that I can speak reasonably to the lack of any value addition given what you've said thus far while stating your conclusions.

Have a blessed one.

MM

 

[rewriter]

Yes, I have already pointed that out in a previous post. So, if I may, are you then applying that with far broader brush strokes than what the contextual limits provide? Therein is my inquiry about your take on it all...do you believe Paul lingually applied that to all his teachings throughout his epistles? In other words, how far are you pushing that statement of his?



It appears you're bent upon ad hominem is a well poisoning ending to any potential for reasonable discussion. Having seen your bird's-eye view of that 175 page thesis compared to the Greek manuscripts in the simplicity of what they state in relation to the historic, cultural and lingual studies I've done through the years, my take on what I have not read of your thesis, and that you seem to take personally my unwillingness to read it, as I stated before, it's likely is a repeat of so many fallaciously lengthy treatise, of which I have read many, that I can speak reasonably to the lack of any value addition given what you've said thus far while stating your conclusions.

Have a blessed one.

MM

Correction, you are intent on ad hominem attacks. You do not know me nor my logic and evidence, you feel free attack me and my motivations. But how about we check you knowledge. Please answer the following questions without resort to google or AI, just off you curren knowledge. All questions asked will have potential relevance to NT writings.

Now in basic chronological sequence for occurring:
What led to the construction of the Jewish temple in Heliopolis and what unexpected feature did it include?
What were the Asiatic Vespers and what deity was associated with them?
What deity did Pompey associate with the Jerusalem temple?
What occurred at Carrhae and how did it influence the beginning of Herod the Great's reign?
Were the Jews and the Nabataeans friends or enemies in each of the following years: 25 BCE, 15 BCE, 5 BCE, 1 CE and 35 CE?
What notable undertaken also took place in45 CE besides Paul's reported first missionary journey and what is its connection to the woman the multi-year bleeding that Jesus healed? (and a bonus, what is the connection between the answer, Greco-Roman biographies and Matthew and Luke?)
What was one of Nero's first very important appointments as emperor and why was it so important. plus how is it connected to Nero's persecution of Christians in 64?

Note, if you can answer all these questions, or even half, without having to consult support services like AI or Google, you will be doing better than virtual all seminary graduates, and even many seminary/graduate school NT profs. But if you cannot, then your knowledge of background events for the NT is sorely lacking. I had to do extensive research to uncover the answers to these questions, the knowledge is deemed irrelevant in most, if not all, seminaries, especially Conservative-Evangelical ones.

Have fun trying to answer.

 

[Drich]

But why was there an attempt to silence the church fathers?

Because of the edict from Caesar that demanded that the people of rome to worship him as a god. Christanity as well as judaism took issue

Might not they have taken action to deflect their death sentences without compromising what the believed by keeping essential teachings private, only for the enlightened, while making public statements in such a way as to deflect concerns?

No. Everyone of them died a martyr save one and he was banished to a prison colony/island. Because rumor has it that they tried to boil him in oil but he was unharmed.

Someone willing to die a martyrs death and tells their followers to be prepared to do the same (Don't get married/Don't start a family because it will only make things harder when they come for you.) is not willing to compromise or change what they believe for the sake putting off a death sentence.

Paul's status as a roman citizen gave him certain rights non citizens did not have. These rights could have prevented him from being beaten with sials when they where captured for spreading the gospel when they where warned not to. Do this sound like the actions of a man willing to compromise what He believes just skirt unfair treatment?

There is a lot of evidence that the official version of history in the early church period is not exactly accurate, including why Christians were persecuted.

Citation please. Im not looking for tertiary commentary from some atheist.. please provide actual historical evidence that calls christian history into question.

Are you aware that there are at least three ancient sources that claim that Tiberius was willing to allow Christianity to be legal?

Again, please provide said source. Not a commentary explaining the source.

This includes one source, plausibly dated to the mid 30's CE and reportedly written on behalf of a man named Tiberius Caesar. Details in this specific reference fit only for a very few years in the 30's CE.

this is the sort of commentary that I said i did not want because it is absolutely worthless without a link to the actual source or at the very least the document's name or identification moniker.

 

[Musicmaster]

Correction, you are intent on ad hominem attacks. You do not know me nor my logic and evidence, you feel free attack me and my motivations. But how about we check you knowledge. Please answer the following questions without resort to google or AI, just off you curren knowledge. All questions asked will have potential relevance to NT writings.

Now in basic chronological sequence for occurring:
What led to the construction of the Jewish temple in Heliopolis and what unexpected feature did it include?
What were the Asiatic Vespers and what deity was associated with them?
What deity did Pompey associate with the Jerusalem temple?
What occurred at Carrhae and how did it influence the beginning of Herod the Great's reign?
Were the Jews and the Nabataeans friends or enemies in each of the following years: 25 BCE, 15 BCE, 5 BCE, 1 CE and 35 CE?
What notable undertaken also took place in45 CE besides Paul's reported first missionary journey and what is its connection to the woman the multi-year bleeding that Jesus healed? (and a bonus, what is the connection between the answer, Greco-Roman biographies and Matthew and Luke?)
What was one of Nero's first very important appointments as emperor and why was it so important. plus how is it connected to Nero's persecution of Christians in 64?

Note, if you can answer all these questions, or even half, without having to consult support services like AI or Google, you will be doing better than virtual all seminary graduates, and even many seminary/graduate school NT profs. But if you cannot, then your knowledge of background events for the NT is sorely lacking. I had to do extensive research to uncover the answers to these questions, the knowledge is deemed irrelevant in most, if not all, seminaries, especially Conservative-Evangelical ones.

Have fun trying to answer.

You've destroyed your credibility to try and turn the tables. My disagreement with you isn't a matter of ad hominem. I have no use for antics like what you're foisting into this.

Have a good one.

MM

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Good point:

1 Corinthians 3:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

That clearly contradicts what so many people assume about James 2, which has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation loss. We see here Paul pointing to works, all of which will be burned, causing the Heavenly dweller to suffer loss, but he himself will still be saved...even though his faith was not "perfected" as pointed out in James 2.

MM

Yes, that's a good example and the Corinthians were an example of a church with a poor reputation. I believe that wood, hay and stubble were earthly works. The previous verses strengthen the context.
Paul was talking about the basis of rewards for the believer.

12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.


Their salvation was definitely by grace through faith, I Corinthians 15.

 

[rewriter]

Because of the edict from Caesar that demanded that the people of rome to worship him as a god. Christanity as well as judaism took issue

No. Everyone of them died a martyr save one and he was banished to a prison colony/island. Because rumor has it that they tried to boil him in oil but he was unharmed.

Someone willing to die a martyrs death and tells their followers to be prepared to do the same (Don't get married/Don't start a family because it will only make things harder when they come for you.) is not willing to compromise or change what they believe for the sake putting off a death sentence.

Paul's status as a roman citizen gave him certain rights non citizens did not have. These rights could have prevented him from being beaten with sials when they where captured for spreading the gospel when they where warned not to. Do this sound like the actions of a man willing to compromise what He believes just skirt unfair treatment?

Citation please. Im not looking for tertiary commentary from some atheist.. please provide actual historical evidence that calls christian history into question.

Again, please provide said source. Not a commentary explaining the source.

this is the sort of commentary that I said i did not want because it is absolutely worthless without a link to the actual source or at the very least the document's name or identification moniker.

You cite Christians being guilty of crimes before they were recognized as crimes. Jews, and by extension Christians as they were recognized as Jews into the 90's at least, were exempt from having to sacrifice to the emperor until sometime after the fall of the Jerusalem temple. Persecutions began earlier, so what was the crime? And you are correct that Paul, as a Roman citizen, was largely exempt from execution, very few crimes carried a death penalty for Roman citizens, so why did he comment about fear being executed? And most of the punishments that Paul claims to have endured fit with punishments that Jews could administer, and would under specific circumstances, including to deflect Roman attention.

Now you claim that the apostles were all executed except for one, can you provide scripture to support that claim? As for John being exiled to Patmos, we do not know which, of many mentioned John's that was. We can be certain that it was not the John who wrote the gospels though as the Greek used is too different.

As for Tiberius's views of Christianity, as I have noted before, both Justine Martyr and Tertullian, both clearly Christian sources, make the same claim in that regards. There are also existent early Christian legends that make similar claims as well as multiple early Christian legends that claim in various ways that there was a body (or bodies), in or inexplicably near, Jesus's tomb (one of the thieves or both, perhaps some unknown body or bodies.

You, in making claims about the death of the apostles, make uncited claims, yet you protest that I make uncited claims. Is this the pot calling the kettle black? Many of the "uncited" claims I have referenced in other discussions in this forum, but I am not certain that I have specifically sited Moses of Chorene, I think I have but I am not certain, so I reference him as the source for a plausible statement by Tiberius Caesar, and before you rapidly dismiss him as so many people do, please investigate to see if the dismissal ic capable of bearing the weight that is used to dismiss. That something that clearly does not fit with the rest of the narrative has been inserted does not necessarily negate the balance of the narrative, especially when the claim is made that the source was not critically inspected, merely copied. A stray document being stored with unrelated, except by general theme, documents does not discredit the entirety.

 

[Drich]

You cite Christians being guilty of crimes before they were recognized as crimes. Jews, and by extension Christians as they were recognized as Jews into the 90's at least, were exempt from having to sacrifice to the emperor until sometime after the fall of the Jerusalem temple.

Are you not familiar with 2 cor 24:
I have worked much harder,been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28 Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?


30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

Persecutions began earlier, so what was the crime?

Paul’s first recorded arrest took place in Philippi in Macedonia during his second missionary journey, sometime around AD 51. A demon-possessed slave girl kept following Paul and Silas and shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved” (Acts 16:17). The girl was disruptive and annoying, and finally Paul turned to her and commanded the demon to leave her. The girl’s owners were furious that their source of income through soothsaying was gone, so they dragged Paul and Silas before the authorities and accused them of causing public riots. The magistrate, going against Roman law, had them beaten and thrown into prison without a trial (Acts 16:23–24).

Paul’s second recorded arrest, which took place in Jerusalem, was prophesied beforehand (Acts 21:11); even with the warning, Paul chose to continue toward the capital. James and the elders of the church in Jerusalem greeted him warmly. They also informed him of Jewish believers who thought Paul was teaching other Jews to reject their Jewish heritage. Hoping to demonstrate this was not true, and at the advice of the elders, Paul joined four men in their purification rights. This required a visit to the temple. But some non-believing Jews from Asia recognized Paul in the temple and stirred up the crowds against him, shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place” (Acts 21:28). None of this was true, but, nonetheless, the people rioted and tried to kill Paul. Paul was quickly arrested by the Romans and put in jail. This occurred sometime around AD 57.

Why was Paul in prison? | GotQuestions.org

Why was Paul in prison? How many times was Paul in prison? What crimes was Paul accused of?

www.gotquestions.org

There are many more examples in the above link material

And you are correct that Paul, as a Roman citizen, was largely exempt from execution,

Not what I said. here it is again:
Paul's status as a roman citizen gave him certain rights non citizens did not have. These rights could have prevented him from being beaten with sials when they where captured for spreading the gospel when they where warned not to. Do this sound like the actions of a man willing to compromise what He believes just skirt unfair treatment?

very few crimes carried a death penalty for Roman citizens, so why did he comment about fear being executed?

Where did he supposedly make this confession of fear? (Book chapter and verse.)

And most of the punishments that Paul claims to have endured fit with punishments that Jews could administer, and would under specific circumstances, including to deflect Roman attention.

Irrelevant as there are cited examples of the state being involved with Paul's beatings and persecution.

Now you claim that the apostles were all executed except for one, can you provide scripture to support that claim?

 

[Drich]

out side of acts 12 :2 (Beheading of James) and Jesus' foretelling of Peter's martyrdom I can provide secular historical accounts.

Overview of key historical sources​

Source	Date	Type	Why It Matters
Tacitus	c. 116 AD	Roman consul and historian	Mentions Jesus' execution and Nero's persecution of Christians
Pliny the Younger	c. 112 AD	Roman governor and historian	Executed Christians for failing to worship the Emperor
Josephus	c. 93 AD	Roman-Jewish historian	Mentions Jesus and James the brother of Jesus
Clement of Rome	c. 95 AD	Early Christian leader	Early reference to Peter and Paul suffering persecution
Ignatius of Antioch	c. 107 AD	Christian bishop	Describes early Christian persecution and martyrdom
Polycarp	c. 155 AD	Christian bishop	One of the earliest detailed martyrdom accounts
Eusebius	c. 310 AD	Church historian	Preserves many traditions about apostolic deaths

Tacitus (c. 56–120 AD)​

Tacitus was a Roman senator, consul of Rome and historian who wrote about the persecution of Christians under Emperor Nero in his work Annals around 116 AD. Tacitus recorded that Jesus, referred to as "Christus," was executed during the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate and that Christians were later punished in Rome after the Great Fire of 64 AD.
Tacitus wrote:

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

This passage is important because it provides a non-Christian reference to both Jesus and the early Christian movement within the first century.

Josephus (c. 37–100 AD)​

Josephus was a Jewish Roman historian who wrote extensively about first-century Judea and the Jewish-Roman wars. In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus mentioned Jesus, James the brother of Jesus and the early Christian movement.
One widely accepted passage records the execution of James:

…the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James…

and on the Christians in the Antiquities of the Jews 18:63–64:

[63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, …had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Pliny the Younger & Trajan (c. 112 AD)​

Pliny the Younger was a Roman governor who wrote to Emperor Trajan seeking guidance on how to deal with Christians in Bithynia-Pontus. His letters provide one of the earliest non-Christian descriptions of Christian worship and Roman persecution. Pliny explains his method of interrogation and punishment:

I interrogated them as to whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I repeated the question a second and third time, threatening punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be executed.

He also notes that some Christians were willing to abandon their faith under pressure, while others refused even when threatened with death. Trajan's response sets a policy of moderation:

Christians are not to be sought out; but if they are accused and convicted, they must be punished.

Clement of Rome (c. 35–99 AD)​

Clement of Rome was one of the earliest Christian leaders outside the New Testament period. Writing around 95 AD in his letter known as 1 Clement, he referred to the suffering and deaths of Peter and Paul. Clement described Peter enduring "many trials" before his death and referred to Paul suffering imprisonment and martyrdom after preaching throughout the Roman world. His writings are among the earliest non-biblical references connecting the apostles with persecution and martyrdom.
Because Clement wrote within the first century and likely knew some of the apostolic generation, his testimony is considered historically significant.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108 AD)​

Ignatius of Antioch was the bishop of Antioch and an early Christian leader who wrote several letters while being transported to Rome for execution.
In his epistles, Ignatius emphasized the willingness of Christians to suffer for their faith and described the authority of the apostles and early church leaders. He did not provide detailed accounts of apostolic deaths, but his writings demonstrate that persecution and martyrdom were already central realities for Christians by the early second century.
Tradition holds that Ignatius himself was executed in Rome during the reign of Emperor Trajan.

Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69–155 AD)​

Polycarp was a Christian bishop and a disciple of the apostle John according to early church tradition. His surviving writings and the later account Martyrdom of Polycarp provide one of the earliest detailed descriptions of Christian martyrdom.
When pressured to renounce Christ, Polycarp is traditionally recorded as saying:

Eighty and six years have I served Him and He has never done me injury [or wrong/never abandoned me]. How then can I blaspheme [or curse] my King and Savior?

Polycarp's death became an important example of Christian faithfulness during persecution and shows how martyrdom was understood in the generations immediately following the apostles.

Eusebius (c. 260–339 AD)​

Eusebius was a Christian historian and bishop best known for writing Ecclesiastical History, one of the most important early histories of Christianity. Eusebius compiled earlier traditions, documents and testimonies concerning the apostles, persecutions and growth of the Church. Many later accounts about how the apostles died are preserved through his writings.
For example, Eusebius recorded Peter being crucified in Rome, Paul being executed under Nero, James the brother of Jesus being killed in Jerusalem and Christian persecution under Roman emperors. Although Eusebius wrote centuries after some events occurred, his work remains a major historical source because it preserves earlier materials that might otherwise have been lost.

How did the Apostles die? History and evidence | The Credible Way

Faith Worth Dying For. Discover how Christian martyrs - from the apostles to believers today - gave their lives for Jesus. Explore history, stories and the lasting credibility of their witness.

thecredibleway.com

Now, that said .. If you are going to try and refute these sources you will need a period correct counter source that contradicts what was provided. not some atheist commentary you decided is more true that these early accounts.

As for John being exiled to Patmos, we do not know which, of many mentioned John's that was. We can be certain that it was not the John who wrote the gospels though as the Greek used is too different.

Whether this is John the apostle or some other John is irrelevant. What is being demonstrated here is a christian being exiled to a prison island for his faith, and works in the church. up until the reigning emperor dies and is release by his successor.

 

[Drich]

As for Tiberius's views of Christianity, as I have noted before, both Justine Martyr and Tertullian, both clearly Christian sources, make the same claim in that regards.

Irrelevant. there is a first century biography by first and second century historians concerning the exploits of Tiberius:
Jul 24, 2026Numerous ancient writers describe the regnal years of Tiberius, including Roman sources(Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio), Jewish sources (Josephus & Philo), and Christian sources (Clement and Tertullian).

And the all paint the same portrait of the same cruel man.

There are also existent early Christian legends that make similar claims as well as multiple early Christian legends that claim in various ways that there was a body (or bodies), in or inexplicably near, Jesus's tomb (one of the thieves or both, perhaps some unknown body or bodies.

unfounded claim, citation please.

You, in making claims about the death of the apostles, make uncited claims, yet you protest that I make uncited claims.

You are clearly projecting your failures to support your own claims on to me, as me work here is fully cited and supported. I've asked you several times for citations and you just spin up more conjecture and speculation. Again just look at all the reference material I have quoted verses what you have provided.

 

[rewriter]

Are you not familiar with 2 cor 24:
I have worked much harder,been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28 Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?


30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.


Paul’s first recorded arrest took place in Philippi in Macedonia during his second missionary journey, sometime around AD 51. A demon-possessed slave girl kept following Paul and Silas and shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved” (Acts 16:17). The girl was disruptive and annoying, and finally Paul turned to her and commanded the demon to leave her. The girl’s owners were furious that their source of income through soothsaying was gone, so they dragged Paul and Silas before the authorities and accused them of causing public riots. The magistrate, going against Roman law, had them beaten and thrown into prison without a trial (Acts 16:23–24).

Paul’s second recorded arrest, which took place in Jerusalem, was prophesied beforehand (Acts 21:11); even with the warning, Paul chose to continue toward the capital. James and the elders of the church in Jerusalem greeted him warmly. They also informed him of Jewish believers who thought Paul was teaching other Jews to reject their Jewish heritage. Hoping to demonstrate this was not true, and at the advice of the elders, Paul joined four men in their purification rights. This required a visit to the temple. But some non-believing Jews from Asia recognized Paul in the temple and stirred up the crowds against him, shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place” (Acts 21:28). None of this was true, but, nonetheless, the people rioted and tried to kill Paul. Paul was quickly arrested by the Romans and put in jail. This occurred sometime around AD 57.

Why was Paul in prison? | GotQuestions.org

Why was Paul in prison? How many times was Paul in prison? What crimes was Paul accused of?

www.gotquestions.org

There are many more examples in the above link material

Not what I said. here it is again:
Paul's status as a roman citizen gave him certain rights non citizens did not have. These rights could have prevented him from being beaten with sials when they where captured for spreading the gospel when they where warned not to. Do this sound like the actions of a man willing to compromise what He believes just skirt unfair treatment?



Where did he supposedly make this confession of fear? (Book chapter and verse.)

Irrelevant as there are cited examples of the state being involved with Paul's beatings and persecution.

I am very familiar with the Acts accounts. Are you familiar with the reasons to doubt what Acts records?

The timetable in Acts works marginally with Paul's self-described chronology if, and only if, Jesus was crucified in 30. However, a crucifixion in 30 raises a host of other issues with biblical and historic timelines, including John's gospel. Matthew and Luke can accommodate at 30 CE crucifixion is, and again only if, Jesus's ministry was less than 8 months. And this is just one of the issues.

Now if Acts is a deliberate fictional account presenting itself as history in order to cover up some inconvenient facts, many issues vanish. A 33 CE crucifixion is logical and fits with Paul's own chronology, the identity of Theophilus is easy to establish, the abundant parallels to events in Greco-Roman fiction and legend are easily explained and even Ephesians, which is disputed as to whether it is authentically Pauline or not cannot only be definitively answered in the affirmative, but it can also be dated to a specific 3 1/2 year time frame at the absolute outside (Likely closer to 2 years). It also allows for the disputed Pastoral Epistles to be clearly Pauline and provide an earliest possible date of mid to late 68 CE for their composition.

Now that is a small fragment of the things that change if Acts is fictional rather than accurately historical. Why Christians were persecuted is also easily resolved and the resolution remains compatible with Roman law of the mid 60's which exempted individual Jews from having to sacrifice to the emperor.

Now if you wish to remain insistent of Acts being historical, please address the issues I have listed with as few "well maybe's" or "if's" as possible, including specifically who Theophilus was rather than a vague "maybe", when under different assumptions, as I have proposed by making it fiction, the identity screams a well-known historic person.

 

[Drich]

I am very familiar with the Acts accounts.

Then i guess you just so happen to overlook/dismiss what you did want to hear from the book of acts.

Are you familiar with the reasons to doubt what Acts records?

..And I was right..

The timetable in Acts works marginally with Paul's self-described chronology if, and only if, Jesus was crucified in 30.

Not true.. Or you would be able to produce a citation that supports your assertion.
The best you seem to be able to ever muster is a commentary from some other athesitic source. You never seem to be able to produce actual historical documentation to support your claims. Claims like acts can not work with Paul's chronology unless Jesus was crucified at 30..

Great, now show me source material that supports this claim. When I ask for proof I am not asking for another atheist's commentary. Show me a historical document that supports your claim please.

However, a crucifixion in 30 raises a host of other issues with biblical and historic timelines, including John's gospel. Matthew and Luke can accommodate at 30 CE crucifixion is, and again only if, Jesus's ministry was less than 8 months. And this is just one of the issues.

Again you can not use this factoid unless you can support your accusation. which makes the rest of your argument moot/red herring, and not worth reading..