Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[fallingblood]

but paul was never a apostle

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

Was Jesus the brother of James an apostle then? By what you are saying no. And then it appears being an apostle was also of little importance.

Also, one could argue that Paul was sent out from the Jerusalem church to be the apostle to the Gentiles. After all, they supported and passed his mission.

And as A_E states, it was claimed that Paul believed he saw the risen Jesus, as did many others. And that he got his command from such.

 

[outhouse]

Also, one could argue that Paul was sent out from the Jerusalem church to be the apostle to the Gentiles.

False, paul himself states he recieved nothing from anyone but jesus

this goes negative against paul

AND he had very limited contact with the real apostles and when he did he fought less one dinner when peter got busted for not eating Kosher by the real apostles

we also know he left the real apostles ticked off.

it was claimed that Paul believed he saw the risen Jesus,

says who?, paul.

and paul created fiction about jesus, based on dreams. Dreams and imagination were considered real to the person.

And that he got his command from such

Yes he got the command from himself, there for not a real apostle

 

[outhouse]

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.

wow he got two things right!! amazing

 

[outhouse]

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.

says who? exactly paul and paul alone.


tell me a want to be apostle would not lie about his judaism? to make himself more like the apostles he so desperately wanted to be.

 

[fallingblood]

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

Why does it seem like that? Many who were had no form of citizenship also moved around quite freely. After all, that was one purpose of the massive road system.

It seems as if you implying way too much.

 

[outhouse]

Why does it seem like that? Many who were had no form of citizenship also moved around quite freely. After all, that was one purpose of the massive road system.

It seems as if you implying way too much.

was there not road taxes a poor peasant could not afford? which would be free for roman citizens??

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Why does it seem like that? Many who were had no form of citizenship also moved around quite freely. After all, that was one purpose of the massive road system.

It seems as if you implying way too much.

Not everyone. There were immigration laws back then too. People with Latin rights such as merchants from Tarsus could move about freely but most people didn't do much moving about at all and stuck to their own territories.

What difference does it make if Paul had Latin rights? He may not have had Cives Romani but so what.

We know Pompey made Tarsus a province, we know Marc Anthony declared it a free city and we know that Augustus exempted it from Imperial Taxes, so it's citizen at least were provinciales but most likely held Latin rights if they were freemen. Paul's family could have been citizens who were granted those rights.

 

[cablescavenger]

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.

Quick check, I took the opportunity to look up Robert Eisenman on wiki.

It says:

Conspiracy theories

Eisenman's often controversial theories about Christian origins have gained the attention of popular book publishers and conspiracy theorists. According to Jeffrey J. Bütz (2010) Eisenman took quite seriously the claim of conspiracy theorists that there were secret documents buried beneath Father Bérenger Saunière's Tour Magdala in the French village of Rennes-le-Château.[38][39]

No mention of wiki calling him a conspiracy theorist. No mention of a bad bias either.

Sorry you misrepresented what it actually said.

Just keeping you honest. Carry on.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Quick check, I took the opportunity to look up Robert Eisenman on wiki.

It says:


No mention of wiki calling him a conspiracy theorist. No mention of a bad bias either.

Sorry you misrepresented what it actually said.

Just keeping you honest. Carry on.

Now go to his actual book and search "conspiracy." Or just look at the table of contents.

Google books
James, the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early ...
By Robert H. Eisenman

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

Why do you let him derail the discussion?

 

[outhouse]

Now heres a good point ignored.

Pauls death at the hands of Roman's


he was beheaded, a death fitting for a roman.


had he been a jew they would have crucified him like the others, but romans would not put their own kind on a cross. Beheading was a roman death.

so now we can add this to all of his roman traits.

Ate roman food
preached to romans
died like a roman
preached no circumcision like a roman
literate like a roman
had a buisiness and money like that of a roman
is written about, and cliamed a roman citizen
paul claims to be kinsman to Herodion


You know, I think there is a good reason most scholars still claim he is a roman citizen

 

[outhouse]

Why do you let him derail the discussion?

why do you even post?


you rarely add anything other then sarcasm

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Not everyone. There were immigration laws back then too. People with Latin rights such as merchants from Tarsus could move about freely but most people didn't do much moving about at all and stuck to their own territories.

You give a very good impression of someone wandering drunkenly across the historical landscape creating facts on the fly. As far as I can recall, you've supplied two references, both of which work against you. In the final analysis you may turn out to be correct, but no one could possibly anticipate such an outcome from your arguments thus far.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You give a very good impression of someone wandering drunkenly across the historical landscape creating facts on the fly. As far as I can recall, you've supplied two references, both of which work against you. In the final analysis you may turn out to be correct, but no one could possibly anticipate such an outcome from your arguments thus far.

Address this please:

"We know Pompey made Tarsus a province, we know Marc Anthony declared it a free city and we know that Augustus exempted it from Imperial Taxes, so it's citizen at least were provinciales but most likely held Latin rights if they were freemen. Paul's family could have been citizens who were granted those rights."

Pretty please...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Address this please:

"We know Pompey made Tarsus a province, we know Marc Anthony declared it a free city and we know that Augustus exempted it from Imperial Taxes, so it's citizen at least were provincials ...

Sure:

..., it is well known that Pompey made Tarsus a province (not a protectorate but a province) of Rome which would have conferred upon it's natives the status of Provinciales...hence the term Provinciales...do you get it yet? And giving them that status he would conferred upon them a limited citizenship.

Provinciales

Provinciales were those persons who fell under Roman influence, or control, but who lacked even the rights of the Foederati, essentially having only the rights of the jus gentium.

Jus gentium:

The legal recognition, developed in the 3rd century BC, of the growing international scope of Roman affairs, and the need for Roman law to deal with situations between Roman citizens and foreign persons. The jus gentium was therefore a Roman legal codification of the widely accepted international law of the time, and was based on highly developed commercial law of the Greek city-states and of other maritime powers. The rights afforded by the jus gentium were considered to be held by all persons, regardless of citizenship.

So far, you've demonstrated that Paul has rights "considered to be held by all persons, regardless of citizenship", nothing more.

... but most likely held Latin rights if they were freemen.

Cynthia, "but most likely" is not a fact, it is not something the "we know," it is not even something that you know - it is (pay really close attention)

what you've claimed but have yet to prove.​

To simply promote your claim as a probable fact substantiating that same claim is more than a little circular.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Sure:

​

So far, you've demonstrated that Paul has rights "considered to be held by all persons, regardless of citizenship", nothing more.


Cynthia, "but most likely" is not a fact, it is not something the "we know," it is not even something that you know - it is (pay really close attention)

what you've claimed but have yet to prove.​

To simply promote your claim as a probable fact substantiating that same claim is more than a little circular.

Is this better?:

Tarsus was a free Roman city exempt from taxes. If Paul was a citizen of Tarsus then it is likely he had Latin rights.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is this better?: ... Tarsus was a free Roman city exempt from taxes. If Paul was a citizen of Tarsus then it is likely he had Latin rights.

It's certainly a start. It would have been even more informative had you told us that it was from the mid 19th century Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography by Sir William Smith, a British lexicographer, about which was said by one reviewer:

When we consult book for reference, we wish to know, not merely what the writer thinks upon a given subject, but his reasons for it; and if the point is disputed, what other views are held, and the reasons for them. In this respect the work before us often fails. [source]​

More to the point, the statement:

If Paul was a citizen of Tarsus then it is likely he had Latin rights.​

presumes the formal category 'citizen of Tarsus' and then draws an inference from that category that is left unjustified. You claim it is 'likely': fine: defend that assertion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am a Roman citizen.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It's certainly a start. It would have been even more informative had you told us that it was from the mid 19th century Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography by Sir William Smith, a British lexicographer, about which was said by one reviewer:

When we consult book for reference, we wish to know, not merely what the writer thinks upon a given subject, but his reasons for it; and if the point is disputed, what other views are held, and the reasons for them. In this respect the work before us often fails. [source]​

More to the point, the statement:

If Paul was a citizen of Tarsus then it is likely he had Latin rights.​

presumes the formal category 'citizen of Tarsus' and then draws an inference from that category that is left unjustified. You claim it is 'likely': fine: defend that assertion.

Where is the criticism for Smith being inaccurate in your citation? Look again please.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I am a Roman citizen.

You don't even know who the Emperor is. So no.