Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[fallingblood]

false and only ignorance can be blamed for such a poor statement




False again


check Romans and see what I told you in the other thread you tried to derail.

Show what other source says Paul was a Roman citizen. If you can't I expect you to drop that issue. I made an argument for Acts being the only source. You haven't made a rebuttal and instead rely on an insult.

Second, the letter to the Romans says nothing about Paul being a Roman citizen. If you think it does, provide the chapter and verses.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I like this. Do you have a source for it?

Roman history. Pompey made Tarsus a Roman province and it's citizens became provinciales.

Look it up.

 

[fallingblood]

its upon you to show this to be true.

maybe he didnt start talking fast enough and got his whoopin, or wasnt fiction

as paul created alot of fiction with his mythical jesus, that came from no other place then his own imagination and what oral traditions he chose to listen to

Read the OP. I made my argument and supported it with credible scholars. If you can't do the same, then please don't waste my time by calling me ignorant or obviously not reason what the OP stated.

As for your link to Eisenman, he is hardly credible. In fact, it only shows your desperation to accept anything that supports your bias. The scholars I quoted in the OP refute Eisenman, and show what the general consensus is

Simply, Eisenman is a conspiracy theorist (Wiki even states this) who has a bad bias. But please, before posting, read the OP and address it. Otherwise, your are just spamming trash.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Roman history. Pompey made Tarsus a Roman province and it's citizens became provinciales.

Look it up.

I see that Pompey may have granted citizenship to some people in Tarsus. Not everyone, and it's not even in the ancient sources.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, Paul does have opportunity to label himself a Roman citizen if he was one. It would give him additional authority.

This strikes me as entirely backwards. Paul's issue is his authority vis a vis the Jerusalem sect.

And, obviously, deflecting the burden of proof does not suggest a position of strength.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I see that Pompey may have granted citizenship to some people in Tarsus. Not everyone, and it's not even in the ancient sources.

Why wouldn't he just offer blanket citizenship like Caesar did with some provinces in Gaul. That's how it was usually done.

 

[fallingblood]

This strikes me as entirely backwards. Paul's issue is his authority vis a vis the Jerusalem sect.

And, obviously, deflecting the burden of proof does not suggest a position of strength.

I'm not really deflecting the burden of proof though. Cynthia made a claim and this should back it up. I have also made claims, but I did back them up in the OP.

I think being a Roman citizen, who then rejects that citizenship for religious matters, does give one a good deal of backup for ones authority. It would paint him as humble, one who is giving up quite a bit, and and ideal missionary for Gentiles, or other Roman citizens.

I also don't see Paul being a Roman citizen taking from his authority. After all, Acts uses it to add to the idea of Paul in a positive way. Not to mention that it would open some doors.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why wouldn't he just offer blanket citizenship like Caesar did with some provinces in Gaul. That's how it was usually done.

Well, I would offer more than a single example from an Emperor and characterize that as normal practice for someone who was not.

Second, you realize that sometimes different people do things differently.

Third, there's no record that Pompey gave citizenship to anyone in Tarsus, at least it's not mentioned in Appian, Dio Chrysostom, Pliny, and Plutarch when they discuss this issue. The argument that Pompey gave citizenship to anyone must come from sources foreign to the ones that mention the Pompey / Tarsus event.

 

[outhouse]

Read the OP. I made my argument and supported it with credible scholars. If you can't do the same, then please don't waste my time by calling me ignorant or obviously not reason what the OP stated.

As for your link to Eisenman, he is hardly credible. In fact, it only shows your desperation to accept anything that supports your bias. The scholars I quoted in the OP refute Eisenman, and show what the general consensus is

Simply, Eisenman is a conspiracy theorist (Wiki even states this) who has a bad bias. But please, before posting, read the OP and address it. Otherwise, your are just spamming trash.

quit spinning misinformation


and quit ignoring what paul stated in Romans

 

[outhouse]

Paul speaks in an unguarded moment in Rom 16:11 of his "kinsman Herodion."


if you cannot refute this your done.

also most of he other material you posted only suggest we should examine it more closely. They are questioning his citizenship, not denouncing it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

quit spinning misinformation


and quit ignoring what paul stated in Romans

What exactly did Paul state in Romans?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Paul speaks in an unguarded moment in Rom 16:11 of his "kinsman Herodion."


if you cannot refute this your done.

also most of he other material you posted only suggest we should examine it more closely. They are questioning his citizenship, not denouncing it.

Honestly, I am trying to figure out how Rom. 16 supports Paul's Roman Citizenship.

 

[fallingblood]

Paul speaks in an unguarded moment in Rom 16:11 of his "kinsman Herodion."


if you cannot refute this your done.

also most of he other material you posted only suggest we should examine it more closely. They are questioning his citizenship, not denouncing it.

Why not refute the OP instead of trolling?

As for the material I posted, it suggests that Paul was not a Roman citizen. Now, with historical studies, we must rely on probability. Is it possible Paul was a Roman citizen? I guess. It is also possible that Jesus was a Roman citizen. Both are quite unlikely.

With the information we have it is much more probable that Acts maked up the claim that Paul was a Roman citizen and that Paul simply was not a Roman citizen. If you read the quotes concerning what we can take away from Acts, it becomes increasingly apparent that we can not assume that Paul was a Roman citizen. As Segal stated, that would be pure speculation, since Paul does not support it (also, that is a general consensus here).

Now, turning to the verse in Romans, which you took out of context, it doesnt say Paul is a Roman citizen. Also, what translation are you using? The KJV?

A better translation (and really kinsman suggests the same thing) is greet Herodian, my fellow Jew. When Paul talks about kinsman ( this is why context matters) he is referring to Jews. Paul uses similar talk when he refers to Jesus in places. So unless you think Jesus was a Roman citizen, your argument fails.

Also, Herodian does not refer to Herod here. Herodian is the name of a fellow Jew. Context shows that.

I don't understand why if I couldn't answer that though why I would be done? You haven't even addressed the OP but you don't seem to think you are done. Also, weren't you the one who said that no one debates Paul being a Roman citizen? Because I have shown beyond a doubt that it is debated.

 

[fallingblood]

Honestly, I am trying to figure out how Rom. 16 supports Paul's Roman Citizenship.

I'm pretty sure it is based on assuming Herodian is not a single person, but refers to followers of Herod or people associated with Herod.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm pretty sure it is based on assuming Herodian is not a single person, but refers to followers of Herod or people associated with Herod.

Jeez.

 

[outhouse]

Honestly, I am trying to figure out how Rom. 16 supports Paul's Roman Citizenship.

well that means romans were his family members "kinsmen"

here's a little on herodians, they seem to be direct enemies of jesus and makes perfect sense that paul would back them.

One thing not posted in this thread that only A&E would know, is that Paul thought or should I say KNEW that things were coming to a head with jews and romans and wanted to protect his movment, he tried calming the jews down and preaching to them [the exact opposite of jesus] that they should follow all the roman rules.










Herodians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Herodians were a sect or party mentioned in the New Testament as having on two occasions — once in Galilee, and again in Jerusalem — manifested an unfriendly disposition towards Jesus (Mark 3:6, 12:13; Matthew 22:16; cf. also Mark 8:15, Luke 13:31-32, Acts 4:27).

 

[outhouse]

Also, Herodian does not refer to Herod here.

Herodians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In each of these cases their name is coupled with that of the Pharisees. According to many interpreters the courtiers or soldiers of Herod Antipas ("Milites Herodis," Jerome) are intended; but more probably the Herodians were a public political party, who distinguished themselves from the two great historical parties of post-exilian Judaism (Pharisees and Sadducees) by the fact that they were and had been sincerely friendly to Herod the Great, the King of the Jews, and to his dynasty (cf. such formations as "Caesariani," "Pompeiani").

It is possible that, to gain adherents, the Herodian party may have been in the habit of representing that the establishment of a Herodian Dynasty would be favourable to the realization of the theocracy; and this in turn may account for pseudo Tertullian's (Adversis Omnes Haereses [1,1)) allegation that the Herodians regarded Herod himself as the Messiah. The sect was called by the Rabbis Boethusians as being friendly to the family of Boethus, whose daughter Mariamne was one of Herod the Great's wives.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Herodians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In each of these cases their name is coupled with that of the Pharisees. According to many interpreters the courtiers or soldiers of Herod Antipas ("Milites Herodis," Jerome) are intended; but more probably the Herodians were a public political party, who distinguished themselves from the two great historical parties of post-exilian Judaism (Pharisees and Sadducees) by the fact that they were and had been sincerely friendly to Herod the Great, the King of the Jews, and to his dynasty (cf. such formations as "Caesariani," "Pompeiani").

It is possible that, to gain adherents, the Herodian party may have been in the habit of representing that the establishment of a Herodian Dynasty would be favourable to the realization of the theocracy; and this in turn may account for pseudo Tertullian's (Adversis Omnes Haereses [1,1)) allegation that the Herodians regarded Herod himself as the Messiah. The sect was called by the Rabbis Boethusians as being friendly to the family of Boethus, whose daughter Mariamne was one of Herod the Great's wives.

This is a pretty bad interpretative error.

"Herodion" is a transliteration of the Greek name - that's exactly how the Greek sounds. "Herodian" means "little Herod" like Christian means "little Christ." That little letter makes a big difference. It's just a name, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Herod the Great or any of the other Herods.

The "kinsman" follows the pattern of Christians calling each other "brother," "sister," and "father." It doesn't mean familial relationships but communion in the faith.

 

[fallingblood]

Herodians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In each of these cases their name is coupled with that of the Pharisees. According to many interpreters the courtiers or soldiers of Herod Antipas ("Milites Herodis," Jerome) are intended; but more probably the Herodians were a public political party, who distinguished themselves from the two great historical parties of post-exilian Judaism (Pharisees and Sadducees) by the fact that they were and had been sincerely friendly to Herod the Great, the King of the Jews, and to his dynasty (cf. such formations as "Caesariani," "Pompeiani").

It is possible that, to gain adherents, the Herodian party may have been in the habit of representing that the establishment of a Herodian Dynasty would be favourable to the realization of the theocracy; and this in turn may account for pseudo Tertullian's (Adversis Omnes Haereses [1,1)) allegation that the Herodians regarded Herod himself as the Messiah. The sect was called by the Rabbis Boethusians as being friendly to the family of Boethus, whose daughter Mariamne was one of Herod the Great's wives.

That's all fine and dandy, yet not what we are talking about. The name is Herodion. No s. It is singular. It refers to a specific person. As in, singular tense. So all your talk about Herodians means nothing here as Romans 16 doesn't say that.

You won't find a single credible scholar who would say that Paul is talking about the Herodians, as the text doesn't talk about the Herodians, but the specific person Herodion.

 

[outhouse]

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