Just read some recent commentaries on Revelation, that is how I know about it.
Care to site some sources on your theory there? Or is this just your opinion?
I was making a suggestion.
You are not providing sources, you are asking me to read some commentaries of someone's opinion.
In what way did I "change my argument"?
Yes it does. You claim Christians were never persecuted yet the article you linked says he did. You're changing your argument.
Some people thought so, much later, and so it eventually became a tradition, that people bad mouthed Nero, when in fact he probably was a sort of hero to the Christians for getting rid of the Jews from Rome who actually were persecuting Christians.
Nero was an authority and according to real history, he killed and bore his sword against Christians.
And your point is . . ?
They took slaves they captured on their conquests and threw them in the coloseum to be eaten alive by lions and tigers, they burnt people on pyres and beheaded them, all because they refused to bow to them.
I told you, quote your source.
So your argument is basically to ignore any history that disagrees with your theory?
That, is what is laughable, since that is just a delusion of non-historians, that there are all these indisputable "facts" from thousands of years ago, a place utterly destroyed by invasions and a complete collapse of civilization, where almost all records were lost, except for a small amount of scattered fragments.
. . . it is a well known historical fact that they did.
Maybe you were traumatized as a child hearing stories of "pagans" murdering the Christian martyrs.
You're so blinded by Paul that you refuse to accept it. Paul called corrupt tyrants agents of god for the good of the people all while they were slaughtering the people.
All he was saying is to not give the authorities good reason to do things to you.
If Romans 13 no longer applies today . . .
You have not shown what documents you are talking about.
We're done because all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to actual documented history.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
And another reference to Greek mythology:
11 After three months we put out to sea in a ship that had wintered in the island. It was an Alexandrian ship with the figurehead of the twin gods Castor and Pollux.
Why was it necessary to tell us what kind of ship it was and what the figurehead was? Maybe he was trying to tell us something?
Since you are the one using this to make a point about how "wrong" Paul was, maybe you should Google some persecution to cite here on the forum.
A good place to start would be Google if you want sources and information on Roman persecution of Christianity.
I have asked you several times already to present your evidence and you refuse, so there is nothing, so far, that I am ignoring.
So you trying to prove Rome "didn't" persecute Christians despite the evidence is not proving a negative how?
It's pretty meaningless to just sit there repeating that.
Your argument doesn't hold any water while mine has actual history and scholarship behind it.
11"How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.
That just means basically that he was a Jew.
You obviously haven't heeded his warning because Paul was a Pharisee before his "conversion".
Which was just engaging in arguments with people who were promoting Christianity.
. . . he admits to persecuting the church.