The Apostle Paul: Shinning example of a Christian

Thanks to my opponent for the debate. My opponent refuses to actually argue the resolution of the debate, instead continuing his strawman attack. I will rebut my opponent's points, but I take his refusal for two rounds to argue the debate's actual resolution as a concession of the debate. Voters are free to vote as they see fit, though I urge them to vote based on the actual debate and not what my opponent has tried to make the debate appear to be. 1) It is debatable if the Jews were allowed, under Roman Law, to execute lawbreakers. Many theorize that stoning was permitted but crucifixion needed extra authority [1]. Therefore, although Roman Laws have no relevance to this debate, my opponent cannot prove, and has not proven, that those who stoned Stephen (which Paul did not) were breaking Roman Law, though I have proven without a doubt that Jewish Law warranted stoning. 2) Though it was possibly illegal for the Jews to execute Stephen under Roman Law (but fully legal and warranted under Jewish Law), Paul did not participate nor exercise authority over those stoning Stephen. They merely laid their garments at his feet, and he watched them, like someone would take off their jacket while playing basketball and give it to a friend. Paul was not guilty of the stoning of Stephen [2]. 3) This reinforces my point. The thief on the cross, though guilty of offenses against Rome, was cleansed of his sin by Christ. The other thief who did not accept Jesus died for his sins, and was not forgiven and therefore remained guilty. The "good thief" was another example of Christian conversion and was with Jesus in Paradise when he died [3]. 4) My opponent asks for a Jewish, Christian or Roman Law that allowed the Jews to stone Stephen. When I gave it to him, he dismissed it, saying, "The only law that applies is the Treaty between Rome and Jerusalem." My opponent continually changes the terms of the debate in order to win, no longer accepting what he claimed would be required to defend Paul. Furthermore, historians aren't even sure this treaty existed, and even if it did, it has no relevance to the debate, or even my opponent's strawman case, as it does not at all reference execution, but rather was a military agreement between the Jewish people and the Romans [4]. The treaty is therefore inapplicable to anything this debate concerns. Final Argument: My opponent decides here to introduce completely new arguments into the debate, in the final round. I'll work with it. 1. My opponent gives a large number of Bible verses, most of which regard O.T. laws about theft and how the thief must pay back the person they stole from. Persecution and theft are different crimes. Paul was merely condemning those he thought were convincing others to worship false gods. This was not theft in the Jewish tradition, nor was it even a crime. Therefore, "restitution" is inapplicable. Furthermore, Paul died for the Christian faith, so even if he had killed Stephen, which he didn't, and "theft of life" counts as theft, which it doesn't, he paid his life for a life that was taken. 2. This last argument is a complete generalization. My opponent claims because Paul was a Pharisee, he was a hypocrite. Well, why did Jesus consider Pharisees hypocrites? This simple quote should do the trick: Pharisee ~ (A) ~ one of a group of Jews who thought that they kept all God's rules. They did not like the things that Jesus taught. They thought that they did not do any wrong things. So, they thought that they were very important and clever [5]. However, Paul clearly repented of his sin, was baptized by Ananias [6] and began to like the things Jesus taught. Therefore, though he still holds the title "Pharisee" he does not comply with the definition of Pharisee that Jesus held to be hypocritical. Arguments Dropped by My Opponent in this debate -Church's teachings on forgiveness -Paul in several ways showed he was a true Christian -Paul is a shining example of Christianity (the entire resolution) Conclusion Paul was a shining example of Christianity. My opponent has refused to debate this topic, though it is the resolution. I, however, have shown without a doubt that the resolution is true. Paul repented of his sins and the Church no longer holds him accountable. He may or may not be guilty of crimes against Rome, but so were all early Christians. Paul spread the Christian message and was instrumental in writing the New Testament. Vote pro. Thanks to the voters for reading. Thanks to my opponent for debating. Sources [1]http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com... [2]http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com... [3]http://biblehub.com... [4]http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [5]http://www.easyenglish.info... [6]http://biblehub.com...