The Apostle Paul: Shinning example of a Christian

Thanks go to my opponent for the argument. My opponent bases their entire argument for Paul not being a shining example of Christianity based off of the fact that the Palestinian government was not allowed to perform capital punishment. This is a huge strawman. For Paul to be an example for Christians, he must hold up only to Christian standards, not Roman standards. My opponent bases his entire argument off of a single point that is invalid. Though it is debatable whether Roman laws allowed Jewish authorities to kill Stephen, Saul actually did not partake in the stoning or sentencing, he rather just watched the cloaks of those who were stoning him [1]. Though Saul approved, it wasn't until after Stephen's death that he began persecuting Christians [1]. My opponent confuses the Church with government. Once again, he strawmans the argument, claiming that if Stephen, who Paul did not even execute, was not allowed to be executed under Roman Law, then Paul should be held guilty against a Church whose policy is forgiveness and not be seen as a role model for them. This makes a few assumptions and strawmans in several places: 1) The biggest problem: My opponent forgets what we are debating. This debate concerns Paul's effectiveness as a Christian example. If my opponent claims adherence to Roman Law is an effective way to determine the way a good Christian should act, then NONE of the members of the early church, including Stephen, would be good Christians, as Christianity itself was illegal in the Roman Empire until 313 A.D. [2]. 2) The Church, which is the real entity that should be being debated, upholds a policy of forgiveness, as demonstrated in my last round. My opponent claims "it doesn't work like that" but then demonstrates that Christ and Christians will forgive, and suddenly switches his definition of "Church" to "Roman Government" in order to make his point seem valid. Keep in mind that this point of Stephen's stoning being illegal under Roman Law (not to mention that the Romans didn't care) "is irrelevant to the debate. Lastly, my opponent asks me to give a law that allowed Stephen to be executed. Deuteronomy 13:6-11 clearly calls for the Jewish people to stone those who preach of a false god: If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you. Since they believed Jesus was a blasphemer pretending to be a god, and Stephen was clearly a dynamic preacher of Christ's word, they acted according to Jewish Law and stoned him. Keep in mind that Saul only approved of, and did not participate, in this stoning. Although my opponent is correct in a description of Stephen's crime, the punishment also fits according to Jewish Law. Conclusion In conclusion, Paul simply followed Jewish Law in his persecution of Christians, though he did not stone Stephen. When he joined the Christian church on the road to Damascus, he converted and repented of his sins against Jesus, which gave an example to all Christians of how to admit one's guilt. According to New Testament teachings, he is no longer guilty of his sins. He later spread God's word across the world, establishing new churches, writing theological documents, etc., again inspiring Christians. My opponent fails to address these arguments that I presented last round, and instead brings up a strawman argument full of fallacies. Remember the resolution here, voters. Thanks for your time. Sources [1]http://www.biblepath.com... [2]http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...