Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[outhouse]

First, to be clear, I have no problem with you thinking that Paul was a Roman citizen. I too thought that until I critically reviewed the arguments.

I agree that Paul could have been a Roman citizen. Paul was alive in the first century and Roman citizenship existed. There is nothing connecting Paul's life with Roman citizenship.

Second, to be even more clear - Paul being a Roman citizen has almost no bearing on the interpretation of his writings.

Oh and that I agree whole hearted.

the citizenship matters little, I do place paul as a god-fearer and as a self proclaimed pharisee, and how jewish he really is has laways been up for debate

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And further more if Paul was just a provinciales, he wouldn't have the right to reside in Rome at anytime.

"§ 25. Freedmen classed with surrendered enemies are incapable of taking under a will in any form, as are other aliens, and are incompetent to make a will according to the prevalent opinion.
§ 26. It is only the lowest grade of freedom, then, that is enjoyed by freedmen assimilated to surrendered aliens, nor does any statute, senatusconsult, or constitution open to them a way of obtaining. Roman citizenship.
§ 27. Further, they are forbidden to reside in the city of Rome or within the hundredth milestone from it; and if they disobey the prohibition, their persons and goods are directed to be sold on the condition that they shall be held in servitude beyond the hundredth milestone from the city, and shall be incapable of subsequent manumission, and, if manumitted, shall be the slaves of the Roman people: and these provisions are dispositions of the lex Aelia Sentia." Institutes of Roman Law

 

[outhouse]

Agreed. The verses before and after seem to suggest Herodian is a single person and not persons.

I would agree the herodian evidence is weak, but its there.


One thing not discussed is why would Luke even state paul was a roman citizen, does he have anything to gain?


There is no real reason for him to fabricate such.


as well it fits Paul to a T

paul wrote alot of fiction in his letters, trying his best to become a real apostle at any means necessary, including stealing what ever he could from some illiterate fishermen.


The real apostles were your typical jew. Rich, educated, literate jews in that time was a rare thing

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You need to quit trying to interpret the 1st century concept of citizenship with our modern one, they are different.

You need to quit the arogant posturing. I've done nothing but quote your references. If you wish to distance yourself from them that is, of course, your right. Get back to me when you want an honest discussion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And further more if Paul was just a provinciales, he wouldn't have the right to reside in Rome at anytime.

"§ 25. Freedmen classed with surrendered enemies are incapable of taking under a will in any form, as are other aliens, and are incompetent to make a will according to the prevalent opinion.

§ 10. Freemen are divided into freeborn and freedmen.
§ 11. The freeborn are free by birth; freedmen by manumission from legal slavery.

-ibid

Know what you're quoting.

 

[fallingblood]

What does A_E know? He thought Julius Caesar was Emperor. And I did go over it again.

The Roman granted citizenship to provinces in toto like in the Lex Roscia

Pompey made Cilicia a Roman province with Tarsus has it's capital. That would have made it's natives Provinciales hence the term Provinciales.

When did A_E say anything about Julius Caesar? I did a search of this thread, and did not see any mention of Julius Caesar except by you. From what it looks like, you mentioned Caesar, but did not actually state what Caesar you were talking about. It is just as easy to assume you were talking about Caesar Augustus as well, since you did not specify.

Also, one problem is that you are assuming that everyone in Tarsus were Roman citizens. That ignores the fact that people did move to and from Tarsus in that time period. We don't know when Paul's family moved to Tarsus (or if they even were from Tarsus).

Now, if Paul was just a Provinciales, it really is a moot point. It is no wonder why he apparently rejects it. However, still, what I say in the OP stands anyway. Especially since Provinciales would still be Roman citizens, and Roman citizens were free from being beaten. Paul was beaten, which suggests he was not a Roman citizen. The information in the OP still stands.

 

[fallingblood]

Oh and that I agree whole hearted.

the citizenship matters little, I do place paul as a god-fearer and as a self proclaimed pharisee, and how jewish he really is has laways been up for debate

But as you have stated, he was Jewish. So he wouldn't be a God-fearer. The two really are not compatible. God-fearers were Gentiles who practiced Judaism to a point, but did not convert (as in, become circumcised). Paul, being a Jew, would have been circumcised, and a full Jew.

 

[fallingblood]

I would agree the herodian evidence is weak, but its there.

It's not there though. It is only there if one wants to make up history. The name is Herodion. Not the O instead of A, and it being singular. It is extremely clear that it refers to a single person, not a group (and it becomes even more clear when the context is examined, in which Paul is addressing specific people).

Herodion was a known name from that time. It was not connected with the Herodians. So no, the evidence simply is not there.

One thing not discussed is why would Luke even state paul was a roman citizen, does he have anything to gain?

Actually, I have discussed that a number of times. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2890077-post18.html And I have posted this to you before, where I also discussed the reason for it.

as well it fits Paul to a T

paul wrote alot of fiction in his letters, trying his best to become a real apostle at any means necessary, including stealing what ever he could from some illiterate fishermen.

It only fits Paul to a T if you build a mold of a T, and then try to jam Paul into it, while adding and cutting things that don't fit.

As far as Paul was concerned, and most others were concerned, Paul was an apostle. And really, if James was an apostle, then there is no reason to assume Paul wasn't.

And there is no evidence he wrote a lot of fiction or stole anything. The vast majority of his letters deal with answering questions. He is simply answering questions. He isn't making up things about Jesus. He talks little about Jesus in fact. Instead, he is making logical arguments.

More so, again, the Jerusalem church supported him. He was part of that movement. He had no reason to steal anything, as he was part of that movement. More so, it is clear that he wasn't just making things up, as the church continued to support him.

The real apostles were your typical jew. Rich, educated, literate jews in that time was a rare thing

And that does not make one a Roman citizen, a Herodian, or anything negative. It doesn't mean they couldn't be a real apostle, or the like.

Also, if he was rich, why are we told that he had to work in the cities that he visited, in order to support himself? That doesn't sound like a rich person. I mean, he can't even buy his way out of prison or stick situations. He is treated like a poor merchant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Best I can tell, what we have at this point (other than Cynthia's haughty dismissal of A_E) is:

• According to Cynthia: "Pompey made Cilicia a Roman province with Tarsus has it's capital. That would have made it's natives Provinciales hence the term Provinciales."
• According to Cynthia's Wikipedia: "Provinciales were those persons who fell under Roman influence ... having only the rights of the jus gentium."
• And, furthermore: "The rights afforded by the jus gentium were considered to be held by all persons, regardless of citizenship."

One would think that Cynthia has managed to show only the following:

• that she doesn't much respect A_E, and
• that Paul, our Tarsus provencial, possessed only those rights considered to be held by all persons regardless of citizenship.

It seems that she's done a fabulous job defending your position.

That she subsequently confuses 'freemen' with 'freedmen' should probably not be held against her. It was simply a case of quote-mining run amok. Far more serious is her attitude toward A_E, since it speaks volumes about her appreciation of giants like Willie and Waylon.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Know what you're quoting.

Et tu.



§ 25. Freedmen classed with surrendered enemies are incapable of taking under a will in any form, as are other aliens, and are incompetent to make a will according to the prevalent opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

§ 25. Freedmen classed with surrendered enemies are incapable of taking under a will in any form, as are other aliens, and are incompetent to make a will according to the prevalent opinion.

Preceded by ...

§ 9. The first division of men by the law of persons is into freemen and slaves.
§ 10. Freemen are divided into freeborn and freedmen.
§ 11. The freeborn are free by birth; freedmen by manumission from legal slavery.
§ 12. Freedmen, again, are divided into three classes, citizens of Rome, Latins, and persons on the footing of enemies surrendered at discretion. Let us examine each class in order, and commence with freedmen assimilated to enemies surrendered at discretion.

Are you seriously claiming that Paul (or all of Tarsus) were freedmen, i.e., free "by manumission from legal slavery"?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Best I can tell, what we have at this point (other than Cynthia's haughty dismissal of A_E) is:

• According to Cynthia: "Pompey made Cilicia a Roman province with Tarsus has it's capital. That would have made it's natives Provinciales hence the term Provinciales."

• 
  
  At least provinciales in terms of right but who knows Paul's family may have had Latin rights.
  
  
  
  

  [*]According to Cynthia's Wikipedia: "Provinciales were those persons who fell under Roman influence ... having only the rights of the jus gentium."[*]And, furthermore: "The rights afforded by the jus gentium were considered to be held by all persons, regardless of citizenship.

  
  And according to Roman law, provinciales could become full citizens.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  One would think that Cynthia has managed to show only the following:

  • that she doesn't much respect A_E

  • 
    
    He thought Caesar was Emperor, it's a pet-peeve of mine.
    
    
    
    

    and[*]that Paul, our Tarsus provencial, possessed only those rights considered to be held by all persons regardless of citizenship.

    
    I said his status being from Tarsus would atleast be provinciales, I think he had Latin rights actually because under Augustus the First Emperor of Rome many in the capital of Cilicia were exempt from the Imperial tax.
    
    

    That she subsequently confuses 'freemen' with 'freedmen' should probably not be held against her. It was simply a case of quote-mining run amok.

    
    No I equated the status of freedmen with surrendered enemies, both which had provinciales status but could not reside in Rome. If Cilicia were conquered then it's citizens would have minimal legal status and could not reside in Rome. It seems they weren't conquered but legal annex and probsably given Latin rights.
    
    

    Far more serious is her attitude toward A_E, since it speaks volumes about her appreciation of giants like Willie and Waylon.

    
    He said Caesar was Emperor.

 

[outhouse]

But as you have stated, he was Jewish. So he wouldn't be a God-fearer. The two really are not compatible. God-fearers were Gentiles who practiced Judaism to a point, but did not convert (as in, become circumcised). Paul, being a Jew, would have been circumcised, and a full Jew.

yes they were compatible

they worshipped the same god, in the same place, at the same time

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Preceded by ...

​

Are you seriously claiming that Paul (or all of Tarsus) were freedmen, i.e., free "by manumission from legal slavery"?

Of course not. And he wasn't a surrendered enemy either. It seems he had Latin rights and could move freely about the Empire

 

[outhouse]

As far as Paul was concerned, and most others were concerned, Paul was an apostle.

but paul was never a apostle

maybe you should look up the greek word, who sent paul? NO ONE!

 

[outhouse]

And there is no evidence he wrote a lot of fiction or stole anything.

everything he wrote about jesus was fiction.

he created a charactor that never existed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

but paul was never a apostle

maybe you should look up the greek word, who sent paul? NO ONE!

Well, he claimed that the resurrected Jesus sent him, and apparently the churches that he founded believed that to some extent.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, he claimed that the resurrected Jesus sent him, and apparently the churches that he founded believed that to some extent.

Go figure, eh.

Oddly, I'd tend to think the "road to Damascus" episode would make discussion about his origins moot.

Isn't what he brought more important than where he came from? (People at the time certainly seemed to think so.)

*crawls under a rock to watch the learned ones discuss*

 

[fallingblood]

yes they were compatible

they worshipped the same god, in the same place, at the same time

You misunderstood. They are not compatible in the sense that if you were a Jew, you were a Jew. You couldn't be a God-fearer. A God-fearer was a person who practiced Judaism to a point but did not convert and was not a Jew. Paul was a Jew. He could not be a God-fearer.

 

[fallingblood]

everything he wrote about jesus was fiction.

he created a charactor that never existed.

That simply is untrue. He wrote that Jesus was born of a woman, and was a Jew. Are you telling me he made that up? More so, he doesn't even really talk about Jesus. So you are missing the vast bulk of his material.