And in the same time I dont think you can argue against, and be certain.
Why not? The evidence is lacking in the idea that Paul was a Roman citizen. The evidence simply is not there. And when everything is examined, it seems more likely that he was not a Roman citizen.
One may not be able to be 100% sure, but that's true with all history. We can only state what is more probable. From the OP, and the lack of refutations to the OP, it seems much more probable that Paul was not a Roman citizen.
as it stands as in many scholarships, there is often no consensus or scholars on opposing views.
In this case the majority of scholars still follow that paul was a roman citizen, and there are those that dont follow that particular idea, Hell some people like the mythers claim he is a fictional fabrication or composite of multiple charactors the same way they try and sling conspiracy theories about. I dont buy those either.
So far all ive seen are those that question it, which by all right they should.
Can you show that the majority still follow that Paul was a Roman citizen? In my OP, I demonstrated that many in fact doubt it. They may not state straight out that he wasn't a Roman citizen, but they hardly ever state anything as definite fact.
At the same time, I also demonstrated that the apparent general consensus is that one can not assume Acts is right, when talking about Paul, unless Paul also backs it up. As Segal states, "all discussion of Paul's early life, especially with details gleaned from Luke, is bound to end in pure speculation." and "we can be sure of Luke's portrayal of Paul only when Paul's own letter confirm them." All of the scholars I quoted agree with this. And since Acts is the only place it is ever mentioned that Paul is a Roman citizen, the logical conclusion then is that we can not trust that claim. That it is pure speculation.
If we look at how scholarship on Paul has progressed, one can see that scholars consistently move away from the use of Acts in regards to Paul, and stick primarily with the Pauline letters. In fact, all of the recent works (2000's and newer) that deal with Paul, only mention Acts when describing how it can not be used as a credible source unless it is backed up by Paul.
If we are to throw Act's out, then do we throw all of Luke out as well?? Of course not, they are both valuable pieces in their own right.
No one suggested throwing out Acts though. Instead, as I mentioned in this post:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2890077-post18.html, we should treat Acts much like we do Luke. We don't take Luke for face value.
For instance, let's look at the genealogy in Luke. We don't take this for granted as if it is fact. No, instead, we apply historical methods to it. One, it is only attested to in Luke. That is a strike against it. It contradicts Matthew, which is another problem (one or both of them have to be wrong). It doesn't appear to be old (as in it first appears there). And we can see a logical reason for Luke to having created it.
Looking at the claim in Acts that Paul is a Roman citizen, is simply doesn't stand against any historical method. It is not attested to anywhere else. It doesn't appear old (as in it only appears in Luke). Paul seemingly contradicts it (as in, for Acts, it is brought up in the context of a beating, while in Paul, it is never mentioned in any such context of that. Instead, Paul simply suffers through and never gets a reprieve). And, as in the post I linked to, Acts has a logical reason for creating such an idea (and there is no good reason for Paul not to have mentioned it).
Now Acts, in regards to Paul, is a little different then Luke as compared to other Gospels. But that is because for Paul, we have a first hand account.
As it stands there is no one saying with certainty he wasnt a roman, only suggestions. Its why wiki or any other encyclopedia hasnt been changed.
Have you looked through all the encyclopedias? And Wiki is not a good source here. If you look at the page, it has changed actually quite a bit. More so, looking at the Encyclopedia Britannica, I couldn't find anything about it stating that Paul was a Roman citizen. So Encyclopedias do seem to be changing it. As in, they simply delete it.
No its not that important, what we really have is a charactor who knows and travels the roman world, preaches to the roman world, and acts like a roman, and eats like a roman, and doesnt follow all the jewish laws. he is a self appointed apostle who fictionaly created his jesus charactor, yet im supposed to trust him.
Where do you get this idea that Paul ate like a Roman? Or that he didn't follow the Jewish laws?
Paul did eat with Gentiles. Peter, who was part of the Jerusalem church, also ate with Gentiles. This is agreed upon by both Paul and Acts.
No Jew kept all of the Jewish laws all of the time. Jesus was guilty of not keeping all of the Jewish laws. All Jews are guilty of not keeping all of the laws.
Paul preached to Gentiles. If we take the idea that Paul preached to the Roman world, then we should also state that Jesus, and the Jerusalem church also preached to the Roman world. After all, Palestine was part of the Roman world. Paul was specifically preaching to Gentiles. It wasn't just Roman citizens (and in fact, I don't think the Roman citizens are even mentioned).
As for traveling the Roman world, so did Jesus. Again, Palestine was part of the Roman world. In fact, many Jews ended up traveling the Roman world simply because the Roman world encompassed so much. It really doesn't tell us anything but that he lived in the Roman world.
Also, he isn't the only self-appointed apostle. Nor does he claim special status, as in he sees there to be a massive amount of apostles. The Jerusalem church apparently had no problem with the idea of Paul being an apostle. In fact, they supported his mission. Also, it should be mentioned that Paul accepted that he was lesser.
Finally, Paul never created an idea of Jesus. Paul was in contact with those who knew Jesus. In fact, we are told that he spent a considerable amount of time with Peter, learning from him. Much of what he says about Jesus can be found in other sources as well, and seems to be, for the most part, taken from older sources. And the fact that the Jerusalem church apparently supported Paul and his mission would suggest that Paul didn't just make something up, but was spreading something that was acceptable. If he wasn't, the logical reaction would be that his mission would be revoked.
It can be best said that paul is complex and leaves more questions then can be answered. LIKE why doesnt he ever mention John the Baptist?
Why should Paul mention John the Baptist? He was preaching about Jesus. More specifically, the risen Jesus. That is what he focused on. That doesn't have anything to do with John the Baptist.
Paul may be complexed, but we can know a lot about him, primarily because he left so much for us (or relatively so much, as in first hand accounts).
I do ask that you go back and read the OP. In it, I already explained more of this, and in fact, stated that it was possible (though improbable) that Paul was a Roman citizen. If he was, it seemingly was of no importance, and something that simply didn't factor into his life. After all, Acts states that he was simply born into it. It wasn't his choice, and he clearly rejects it by allowing himself to go through the beatings that he did.
