Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[angellous_evangellous]

i think they were collecting the stamps.

Excellent

 

[outhouse]

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

because he was responsible as the one who spread the movement because he took it to his roman brothers.


who preserved his letters? the romans


without paul who knows if we would even have christianity.

 

[outhouse]

Excellent

Do you really think based on the poor case Fb provided, that paul didnt hold a roman citizenship?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

because he was responsible as the one who spread the movement because he took it to his roman brothers.


who preserved his letters? the romans


without paul who knows if we would even have christianity.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that you're just venting your bias rather than thinking critically about the evidence.

Fallingblood's OP is fine.

 

[outhouse]

It's becoming clearer and clearer that you're just venting your bias rather than thinking critically about the evidence.

Fallingblood's OP is fine.

jews dont claim him as one of their own, and isnt it thinking critically to wonder why romans would preserve a book jews had written? Do we have any books that only a jew wrote?? [and matthew doesnt cut it since he has Marks roman foundation] we could make a argurment at best that Q would be jewish and it doesnt exist, ever wonder why?

I dont have bias towards paul, I just think its makes perfect sense that he was a roman citizen based on anthropology more so then a arguement of silence in which we first have to give our undivided trust to paul's mythology. [and there is where my probelem lies, I am supposed to trust mythology]


And OP has only shown scholars question his citizenship which is fine I agree in that respect.

I dont think there is one respected scholar that will claim with certainty paul was not a citizen.

But theres a plenty that follow he was a citizen

 

[angellous_evangellous]

jews dont claim him as one of their own, and isnt it thinking critically to wonder why romans would preserve a book jews had written?

I dont have bias towards paul, I just think its makes perfect sense that he was a roman citizen based on anthropology more so then a arguement of silence in which we first have to give our undivided trust to paul.


And OP has only shown scholars question his citizenship which is fine I agree in that respect.

I dont think there is one respected scholar that will claim with certainty paul was not a citizen.

But theres a plenty that follow he was a citizen

Yet you have not addressed the question:

Did the people who preserved Paul's letter's think that he was an apostle?

And if they did not think that he was an apostle, why did they preserve it?

Importantly, what did Romans see in Paul that Jews didn't?

The problem is not that you're asking questions - you're just starting in the wrong place entirely.

Plenty of scholars reject the idea that Paul was a Roman citizen. Frankly, it's a position based on exceptionally poor scholarship and that's why hardly no one argues for it (except for the most conservative theologians who must accept Acts as historical).

 

[outhouse]

Did the people who preserved Paul's letter's think that he was an apostle?

yes, they did

Importantly, what did Romans see in Paul that Jews didn't?

he brought jesus message to them, to jews jesus was a failed messaih.


the movement failed in judaism

 

[Desert Snake]

because he was responsible as the one who spread the movement because he took it to his roman brothers.


who preserved his letters? the romans


without paul who knows if we would even have christianity.

nice conspiracy theory. Considering that Paul states himself that he is a Jew, I think I'll go with the Biblical text rather than another one of your theories.

 

[outhouse]

nice conspiracy theory. Considering that Paul states himself that he is a Jew, I think I'll go with the Biblical text rather than another one of your theories.

im sorry but I will kindly ask you to back your statement

you cannot refute a sentance I wrote

 

[outhouse]

heres some in depth study done on Paul and his roman citizenship

http://www.jgrchj.net/reviews/8.R29-R35-Costa_on_Porter.pdf

​

Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman], edited by Stanley Porter, is a scholarly approach to the apostle Paul through three ethnic lenses, as the title of the book suggests. The source materials utilized are primarily the Pauline letters, but also the book of Acts. Porter points out that Paul’s Jewish identity is generally unquestioned. In terms of Paul being a Greek and a Roman, Porter admits that here it is more difficult to prove. Porter notes that Paul’s origins in Tarsus are not to be ‘seriously disputed’ (p. 3) as Paul claims after his calling he went to Arabia and Damascus rather than Jerusalem (Gal. 1.17). Paul’s Greek side is readily seen in the fact that he wrote his letters either himself or through a scribe in Greek, and he usually cited Scripture from the Septuagint.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Desert Snake]

im sorry but I will kindly ask you to back your statement

you cannot refute a sentance I wrote

I have no reason to think Paul wasn't a Roman citizen, but didn't you state that you think Paul was lying about being a Jew to gain credibility as a disciple?

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Here is your post, notice how you call him a Hellenized Jew on the one hand and then moments later state that he wasn't a *real* Jew. It's contradictory, IMO.

 

[outhouse]

heres the important text

Sean Adams closes the book by examining Paul as a Roman citizen, and what Roman citizenship in the ancient world entailed. Adams looks particularly at Acts 22.22-29 where Paul makes a claim to Roman citizenship. Paul says nothing of Roman citizenship in his letters, and the only recourse one has, according to Adams, is to Luke’s record in Acts, which sees Paul as both a Roman citizen and a Hellenistic Jew from Tarsus. Adams begins first by investigating the subject of the Review: PORTER [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Paul: Jew, Greek and Roman [/FONT][/FONT]R35
nature and development of Roman citizenship in the ancient world, and the rights and privileges associated with it. He also treats the dangerous ramifications for false claimants to Roman citizenship. In addressing the question of Paul’s citizenship, Adams raises the well known ques-tion of the historical veracity of Acts. Some see Paul’s claim to Roman citizenship as a Lukan invention to make Gentiles receptive to Paul. Adams sees no need for this suspicion regarding Acts, and sees some of this scholarly reaction to Acts as based on arguments from silence. As a result, Adams sees a rejection of Paul’s Roman citizenship as a hasty dismissal on the part of some scholars, and Adams has renewed the call for a more in-depth application and study of this particular part of Paul’s persona.

 

[outhouse]

I have no reason to think Paul wasn't a Roman citizen, but didn't you state that you think Paul was lying about being a Jew to gain credibility as a disciple?

No you misunderstood, or simply misread

paul was a jew as well as a roman citizen, the fact he is from Tarsus gives this a strong possibility


Im saying paul lied about being a apostle, he quite cleary states he is self appointed, thus he could'nt be one as it means "to be sent forth"

 

[outhouse]

Here is your post, notice how you call him a Hellenized Jew on the one hand and then moments later state that he wasn't a *real* Jew. It's contradictory, IMO.

Yes i see what your talking about now.

a real jew like the poor peasants that jews normally were in galilee under roman oppression. like jesus. Like his real apostles.


paul was a hybrid jew

 

[outhouse]

I have no reason to think Paul wasn't a Roman citizen, but didn't you state that you think Paul was lying about being a Jew to gain credibility as a disciple?

to compound on this, I will state he did lie about how jewish he was to make himself more of a apostle

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes i see what your talking about now.

a real jew like the poor peasants that jews normally were in galilee under roman oppression. like jesus. Like his real apostles.


paul was a hybrid jew

Well in any case it does seem like he was a Roman citizen, which is the OP topic anyway.

 

[outhouse]

Well in any case it does seem like he was a Roman citizen, which is the Op topic anyway.

yes I agree

heres a link that makes good sense as well.


Paul – The Roman Citizen and Jewish Teacher « Unorthodox Faith

Conclusion

Thus, in order to be a Roman citizen, Paul’s father had to be a citizen and might have been a Gentile. There’s no way to even know whether his parents were even legally married. One way or the other, he was fully Roman citizen of Tarsus – with all the rights pertaining to that citizenship.
(Interestingly, citizens could lose their r
ights and be downgraded if they relocated to a city of lesser status from their hometown. Paul was a citizen of Tarsus, a provincial capital, and then made Antioch, the capital of the Syrian province, his home for his ministry work. This probably had as much to do with the protections it afforded him as the group of believers worshiping there.)

But in order to be a Pharisee, his mother had to be Jewish. It was not enough for him to accept the tenets of Judaism. He had to be raised as a Jew in order to be educated in the most prestigious Jewish school outside of Babylon at the time.

Paul provides us with a unique bridge between Jewish Christianity (which evolved into the Ebionite movements) and Gentile Christianity. He was both – legally and fundamentally – and that gave him a unique perspective. Although highly literate, with an intellect worthy of his Roman citizenship, he was also an immensely knowledgeable student of Torah. He could see the worlds he lived in and the new kingdom that was emerging from the fusion of the two.

 

[outhouse]

heres another good article on paul's citizenship


Apostle Paul - Biblical Anatolia

St. Paul, the great Christian missionary, was born perhaps in 10 CE, in the Cilician city of Tarsus. His family was Jewish and from them he inherited Roman citizenship.

St. Paul was privileged to have been born a Roman citizen at a time when it was not yet a universal right for people in the empire. Initially confined to freeborn natives of the city itself, as Roman control was extended throughout Italy and then to the lands bordering the Mediterranean and beyond, certain individuals and communities were given this right. At the time of St. Paul's ancestors, one way of attaining to Roman citizenship was serving in the Roman army for twenty-five years. However, because of sabbath and Mosaic food prescriptions this profession would not have been normally possible for a Jew.
The second way by which Roman citizenship could be gained was slavery. It was known that during the two centuries preceding St. Paul's time, thousands of people were deported from the eastern Levant to Italy and made slaves. In the course of time some of these were able to distinguish themselves by their skill and profession and were either freed by their masters or bought their freedom and thus were given Roman citizenship. A remote ancestor of St. Paul, after obtaining this citizenship, seems to have returned to his native city Tarsus and reestablished the family business. Neither Acts nor his letters give enough information about St. Paul's ancestors or parents. He is known to have had a married sister in Jerusalem and a nephew (Acts 23: 16). From one of his letters we learn that he had some distant relatives (Rom 16:7, 11, 21).
The most important privilege that Roman citizenship conferred on a subject was that he enjoyed legal protection and could not be scourged and had the right of appeal to the emperor in person, hence St. Paul's journey to Rome to appeal to Caesar. It is thought that during the floggings he endured (2 Cor 11 :25), the Apostle may have not revealed his citizenship because of the fact that he wished to follow Christ in his suffering. Even if they were condemned to death, Roman citizens could not be crucified. In the course of time, however, it seems that the avaricious government officials began selling this right as admitted by the cohort commander Claudius Lysias to St. Paul: 'acquired this citizenship for a large sum of money' (Acts 22:28). A citizen's responsibilities included the performance of military service, from which Jews were exempted on religious grounds such as sabbath and kosher food.​

 

[outhouse]

And yet another, that really sums it up well

http://www.koinoniablog.net/2009/01/pay-to-play.html


Though a minority of scholars argue that Paul’s Roman citizenship is not historical, most conclude for solid reasons that Luke accurately reflects Paul’s situation. Conversations generally revolve around how Paul’s father might have come to be a Roman citizen, thus making his son a citizen as well.