Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[outhouse]

That is precisely backwards. The earlier traditions -- Paul's own writings -- clearly do not identify him as a Roman citizen. It's the MUCH later traditions - ACTS - that, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, does identify him as a Roman citizen.

I never stated what little real non-interpolated material we have states that. im talking about the arguement of silence

Actually according to the jewish encyclopedia, pauls own writings indicate he wasnt that jewish. And that his jewishness came from hellenistic sources. [romans]

SAUL OF TARSUS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Anti-Jewish Attitude.

Whatever the physiological or psychological analysis of Paul's temperament may be, his conception of life was not Jewish. Nor can his unparalleled animosity and hostility to Judaism as voiced in the Epistles be accounted for except upon the assumption that, while born a Jew, he was never in sympathy or in touch with the doctrines of the rabbinical schools. For even his Jewish teachings came to him through Hellenistic channels, as is indicated by the great emphasis laid upon "the day of the divine wrath" (Rom. i. 18; ii. 5, 8; iii. 5; iv. 15; v. 9; ix. 22; xii. 19; I Thess. i. 10; Col. iii. 6; comp. Sibyllines, iii. 309 et seq., 332; iv. 159, 161 et seq.; and elsewhere), as well as by his ethical monitions, which are rather inconsistently taken over from Jewish codes of law for proselytes, the Didache and Didascalia. It is quite natural, then, that not only the Jews (Acts xxi. 21), but also the Judæo-Christians, regarded Paul as an "apostate from the Law" (see Eusebius, l.c. iii. 27; Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 26, 2; Origen, "Contra Celsum," v. 65; Clement of Rome, "Recognitiones," i. 70. 73).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now I don't think that Paul was a citizen because he doesn't say so, especially when one considers Philippians 2, where Paul reflects on his past.

I've reread Philippians 2 a few times and I don't see where you think it might have been or should have been raised.

He could have mentioned citizenship also in 1 Corinthians 9, where he talks about the struggles that he endures because of his apostleship.

This makes more sense to me, but I still find it unconvincing. Given the letter's intent, "am I not free" [stated twice] strikes me as qualitatively preferable to "am I not a Roman citizen?".

And, speaking of being free, van Minnen writes: "In the mean time I have amassed evidence for Jews enslaved and then freed by Romans in their conquest of the East. It turns out to be a much wider phenomenon than I even thought in 1995 (and certainly not caught by the standard studies of, e.g., Vittinghoff, Römische Kolonisation)." I would love to see that evidence.

 

[Desert Snake]

when you get into details about herodians and pauls ethics, things start becoming very clear.

Paul claims to be a jew of jews yet, Paul eats anything, which is not a jewish trait, and paul doesnt follow the religious letter of he law regarding circumcision.

Its pretty obvious, he is more roman then jew, added with the fact he knows roman cities like the back of his hand.

Remember, NO WHERE can you fond anyone claiming with certainty that paul is only a jew, ALL of your sources claim it should be questioned which is fine.

BUT as it stands, paul is as roman as they come and thats why all encycopedias list him as a roman citizen

Ahh, in the manner of Christians.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've reread Philippians 2 a few times and I don't see where you think it might have been or should have been raised.

I'm sorry, it's Philippians 3 - where Paul describes himself - and it's patterned after his description of Christ in chapter 2.

... though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.

(Philippians 3:4-7 ESV)

This is the best place for Paul to boast in who he was as a Roman citizen - which he does not.

 

[outhouse]

I'm sorry, it's Philippians 3 - where Paul describes himself - and it's patterned after his description of Christ in chapter 2.



This is the best place for Paul to boast in who he was as a Roman citizen - which he does not.

except for one huge issue :yes:

when boastfully describing how jewish you are, you would never mention how roman you were

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry, it's Philippians 3 - where Paul describes himself - and it's patterned after his description of Christ in chapter 2.

... though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.

(Philippians 3:4-7 ESV)

This is the best place for Paul to boast in who he was as a Roman citizen - which he does not.

I respectfully disagree. Schnelle writes: "It is mostly undisputed, however, that in 3.2-11 Paul struggles against Jewish Christian missionaries. The apostle describes them as 'dogs,' in order to characterize the malignant and destructive intentions of his opponents." Paul seems to be saying: "Who are these uber-Jew dogs to come in here and tell us who is and who is not to be circumcised? My Jewish credentials are second to none! Just look at me ...

circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless, -- and I'm a Roman citizen!" ​

Not only does it not flow, it flows counter to what Paul is trying to convey. At least that's how it seems to me.

 

[outhouse]

here is a excellent article written on how and why paul IS a roman citizen



http://www.hisholychurch.net/pdfiles/law/Roman.pdf

 

[angellous_evangellous]

except for one huge issue :yes:

when boastfully describing how jewish you are, you would never mention how roman you were

Kinda defeats your argument of how Roman Paul was, doesn't it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

when boastfully describing how jewish you are, you would never mention how roman you were

Second point: You've been arguing that Paul (a Jew) fully embraced his Roman citizenship. If that's the case, we have a Jew among Jews who proudly celebrate their Roman citizenship --- although they were a conquered people --- but this is just like all the other conquered peoples who used Roman citizenship and patronage to fully integrate themselves into Roman society.

So yes, if Paul were proud of his citizenship - or even his wealth that got him there - it would be useful in boasting in his success as a "Roman" Jew.

 

[outhouse]

Kinda defeats your argument of how Roman Paul was, doesn't it?

No not at all.

paul is a self appointed apostle, he was not a real apostle, he created his apostleship, and a background so he mimics a real one.

what we have is alot of fiction going on with paul



what does he claim about his position as a apostle?

 

[outhouse]

Second point: You've been arguing that Paul (a Jew) fully embraced his Roman citizenship. If that's the case, we have a Jew among Jews who proudly celebrate their Roman citizenship --- although they were a conquered people --- but this is just like all the other conquered peoples who used Roman citizenship and patronage to fully integrate themselves into Roman society.

So yes, if Paul were proud of his citizenship - or even his wealth that got him there - it would be useful in boasting in his success as a "Roman" Jew.

First of all, there were many romans who followed judaism and worshipped just like a jew in a synagogue

and if your a self appointed apostle to go out and teach a movement almost completely created in your own mind based from oral tradition, you would try your best to identify yourself with the movement you leeched on to

 

[angellous_evangellous]

what we have is alot of fiction going on with paul

Except, of course, everything that you think points to him being a Roman citizen.

 

[outhouse]

Except, of course, everything that you think points to him being a Roman citizen.

no because im not taking anything word for word literally, on either side of the coin.



look were talking about a man who leeched on to the movement and created his own theology.

key word is created, he created his theology, he created his apostleship, and im supposed to follow a arguement from silence, when the glove doesnt fit? you must?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

no because im not taking anything word for word literally, on either side of the coin.



look were talking about a man who leeched on to the movement and created his own theology.

key word is created, he created his theology, he created his apostleship, and im supposed to follow a arguement from silence, when the glove doesnt fit? you must?

So do you think that Paul was *literally* a Roman citizen?

 

[outhouse]

So do you think that Paul was *literally* a Roman citizen?

he was a very hellenized jew with roman citizenship.

He definatly was not a "real" jew that would have followed or hung around jesus.


I think paul exaggerates how jewish he was, I means its obvious he's trying to drive it home because he wants to be seen as a credible apostle, which he never was.

 

[idav]

Was there a real distinction between Jew and Roman when the Romans seemed like they were under the command of the Jews? Whatever religion was in bed at the time with the Empire had full reign, and at the time of Jesus and the apostles Jews had their hands in mans law. Once Christians got the foothold, thanks too someone in the ranks, the Christians got the sleep over.

 

[Quagmire]

Was there a real distinction between Jew and Roman when the Romans seemed like they were under the command of the Jews? Whatever religion was in bed at the time with the Empire had full reign, and at the time of Jesus and the apostles Jews had their hands in mans law. Once Christians got the foothold, thanks too someone in the ranks, the Christians got the sleep over.

Uh, . . .what?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

he was a very hellenized jew with roman citizenship.

He definatly was not a "real" jew that would have followed or hung around jesus.


I think paul exaggerates how jewish he was, I means its obvious he's trying to drive it home because he wants to be seen as a credible apostle, which he never was.

Why do you think people preserved his letters? (If Paul was never seen as a credible apostle)

 

[idav]

Uh, . . .what?

Jews were part of the Roman government and had their laws enforced by Romans. Later Christians got in with the government once Constantine converted for whatever reason.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why do you think people preserved his letters? (If Paul was never seen as a credible apostle)

I think they were collecting the stamps.

But I really do not know why you respond to him ...