Who didn't hold to the biblical definition of a false prophet for starters - only documented in a mythical account. Please try harder.
Acts is very clear on this.
Stephen was tried by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy against Moses and God as well as speaking against the Temple and the Law (Acts 6:11, 13-14).
Reading comprehension issues here. The common people out there will get it, you may have difficulty (particulary since you chose this line of attack) and that is blasphemy is not the same offense as being a false prophet. Further, as Stephen's defense went, he was falsely accused of blasphemy too boot. 0 for 2 so far.
Ironically, Paul of Tarsus, whips the mob into a fury and they stone him.
Very vague reference, probably referring to Act 14. If that is the case what was the charge - blasphemy or being a false prophet - two entirely different charges. 0 for 3
Now Resty, this is the kind of ignorance I am talking about. Resty wouldn't know this being LDS and not as familiar with the NT so he'd let you get away with this, but I won't.
AFA ignorance goes, you have yet to make your point.
Which one of the Prophets did your fathers not persecute, and they killed the ones who prophesied the coming of the Just One, of whom now, too, you have become betrayers and murderers. (Acts 7:52)
Hmmmm, persecution and unjustified killing of prophet(s) who was prophecing the TRUTH.
They don't know what they are talking about. They have a child's rudimentary understanding of the Bible. They ignore or deny what they either don't understand or don't agree with.
Rudimentary understanding - you speak with great experience on the subject. Let me get my crayons out for 10. Biblical definition of a false prophet is one who one who claims to be a prophet of God and speak in His name, yet makes false statements in the name of God. The scriptural source for this is based upon Deuteronomy 18:20.
Unjust persecution or murder on a separate issue - in your examples claims of blasphemy (generally defaming the name of God) are not the same. We will see the simpleton manner of your logic later.
They ignore or deny what they either don't understand or don't agree with.
Oh really, well that is nice, except you have not posed such a situation yet.
As they argue they'll use the Bible, tradition or the opinions of men including several logical fallacies like the ones you've seen posted by Godzilla just now.
Logical fallacies - since blasphemy does not equal being a false prophet, I've not fallen into any. But then you've so obamaesquely have accused me of the thing which you are guilty of. Really 10, you are a waste of even good crayons.
Was Joseph Smith slain for being a false prophet
Yes, but they were wrong.
For starters, since you italicized the first statement - you have falsely attributed it to me in order to build a sham of a strawman. Second, as noted above, that an individual was 'slain' does not mean that it was because they were a 'false prophet' - indeed, those you point to as being slain were true prophets. So you logic fails because it tries to say that because smith was killed because he claimed to be a prophet. This strawman avoids the proof of the matter which is first and foremost - did he make false prophecies in God's name? The overwhelming facts are is that smith made specific false prophecies - and is a false prophet. Unlike those who killed Stephen or Paul (who spoke the truth) smith spoke falsely.
Why smith was killed is another matter altogether - but history indicates it was for matters other than being a false prophet.
Let me know when seminary gets out 10, I'll have my crayons ready for you.
Love the description...very apt.
Next barrel of fish....