I visited the Holey Board forum and I was shocked at what some Christian wrote. I thought to bring the subject over to this forum for any comment on whether Stephen was really a "master debater" defender of the truth or was he the fabrication of an ingenious mind like Luke's.

An overzealous Christian posted…
"Stephen when he was stoned was it because he was such a good debater or because the Jews were sent into a rage by the truth he spoke? I could go on."
I would like to use this example to show you how far away from reality some Christians operate. The story of Stephen was written by a Greek fellow by the name of Luke. He was Paul's most trusted companion. Stephen was Greek, too. The first martyr of the Christian cause was a Greek Jew who was allegedly killed by Hebrew Jews supervised by a Roman Jew who later became the #12, #13, or #14 apostle. Somebody missed to prophesy all this! It would have boosted Christianity to a new height right from the beginning! It must have been an oversight, I guess. We were told that no Jew had the right to execute anyone. That is why they had to turn Jesus over to Pontius.

John 18:31 (NIV) Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.

If that were the case according to the "Jews" then the stoning of Stephen and the attempted stoning of the woman who was "caught in the very act of adultery" must have been illegally conducted. The very story of Jesus' final days is full of glitches, too. I cannot see how the head of the religious Jewish community would violate their own rules and have a Jewish fellow arrested and delivered to the Goyim for execution when it is so clearly stated that they could have done it themselves. In fact, it is reported that ALL the Jews were against Jesus at the time of his execution. So why should the Romans be involved? The final charge made against Jesus was of a religious nature. P. Pilate disqualified himself from intervening. It is very odd that Luke ignored the "we have no right to execute anyone" bit when Paul was doing it all the time, or at least in the case of Stephen. Luke seems to change the story to suit his objectives.

Going back to the Stephen story and his "master debater" credentials. He is said to be full of the "holy spook" and so he went on a long dissertation of the Hebrew history from a Greek perspective. He didn't have all the historical facts right, but that didn't seem to have raised any eyebrows among the members of the Sanhedrin. They are portrayed as content to hear their own story from the lips of a Greek Jew in spite of the errors that Stephen slipped in. Everything was going well until he made the statement of what appears to place Jesus on an equal footing with the "Father" that the JEWS rushed at him not wanting to hear him preaching anymore. They covered their ears and they ALL rushed at him and he was dragged outside and was rocked to sleep while Paul took full credit for doing the first Christian martyr. In the meantime, Stephen had enough time to kneel and to make a public prayer of no avail. Actually, nobody can tell the judge whether a crime can go unpunished. This is a matter for the judge to decide.

In the NT Jesus is presented as the repository of the Christian spirits. When Jesus died he delivered his spirit to the "Father." "Luke 23:46 (NIV) Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last." Now Jesus is doing the job of collecting the spirits of the Christians who die. So I wonder if this isn’t another attempt to prove the "Trinity," too? Something like both of them are doing the same kind of work.

Stephen seems to believe that Jesus is going to judge everybody. In Christian "theology" the judge presiding at the "great white throne" is "God the Father." So according to Christianity it appears that Jesus has no jurisdiction to judge the band that stoned Stephen, but his "Father" will judge them at the "great white throne" judgment. When Jesus died he asked the "Father" to forgive them "because they know not what they are doing." Luke 23:34 (NIV) Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing…" But here we see Stephen asking Jesus "not to hold this sin against them." When did the transfer of power come about? Is this done in an effort to prove that the "Trinity" is back on? Or, is Jesus the middleman? One prays to Jesus and passes the word to "God the Father" -- Although some Christians add the "Virgin Mary" and the saints as middlepersons, too. So the protocol goes from the

Stephen was spunky, but too inaccurate about real life facts and even slanderous. He probably had an overdose of "holey spook." In his sermon he lied about the death of Abraham's father, about the number in Jacob's family that migrated to Egypt, and about Jacob's burial place. Also, following a long Christian tradition Stephen slanders the Jews about persecuting ALL the prophets and murdering ALL those who predicted the coming of the messiah. What prophets were persecuted? What prophet was killed for predicting the coming of the messiah? This is clearly anti-Jewish scum written by the early Christians fathers.

Acts 7:51 (NIV) "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
52 Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him--

Acts 7:56 (NIV) "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him,
58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.
8:1 And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.

Stephen was not really a "master debater." Stephen is portrayed as a Greek anti-Jewish preacher who doesn't want any converts from among the Jews (for which we are thankful!) He plainly attacked the Jewish Sanhedrin as murderers, just like Jesus did. Although, Jesus set the precedent to blame the Jews for all the murders in the world. Now the world is blaming all the Jews for the alleged killing of Jesus, too.

It is amazing that Luke was able to capture Stephen's full speech in writing so many years after the facts. Was it taken out of the Sanhedrin stenographer's records, or Paul gave Luke the gist of Stephen's sermon and Luke made up the rest? As a PR man for Christianity, Luke is very ingenious good! As a master debater Stephen is a sore sight to behold in the eyes of any Jew.