Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[angellous_evangellous]

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

(you are embarrassing yourself)

 

[CynthiaCypher]

(you are embarrassing yourself)

Still maintaining Julius Caesar was Emperor?

 

[Quagmire]

Now heres a good point ignored.

Pauls death at the hands of Roman's


he was beheaded, a death fitting for a roman.

This is just Christian tradition. There are no actual accounts, biblical or otherwise, of how Paul died.

A few of early church writings mention that he was martyred, but they don't say how.

The idea that he was beheaded could well have come from the assumption that he was a Roman citizen. If so, using it as evidence to that effect would be circular.

 

[outhouse]

This is just Christian tradition. There are no actual accounts, biblical or otherwise, of how Paul died.

A few of early church writings mention that he was martyred, but they don't say how.

The idea that he was beheaded could well have come from the assumption that he was a Roman citizen. If so, using it as evidence to that effect would be circular.

Point noted, I was waiting for someone to thow it out


You would think a charactor like paul would have some oral tradion regarding his death floating around. But in a sea of romans, it probably was unoticed.

 

[fallingblood]

Instead of responding to the various posts, one by one, I'm going to address the basics of Outhouse's arguments and CynthiaCypher's arguments (I do ask that both actually read the OP. It seems to me that they haven't read the OP, and I based this on their replies not actually dealing with what I posted in the OP). I hoping that saves room, as well as make my posts easier to navigate (this way I don't have to repeat points), as well as reduce on clutter.

I will start with Outhouse. I do ask, that if you respond at all, respond in total. I ask this because you have a history of taking me out of context, or avoiding the vast majority of the points that I have made. At best, it is simply an annoyance (as I do spend the time to actually make such arguments, and support them), and at worst, it is intellectual dishonesty.

So let's start.

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

That's not entirely true. Paul may state he received nothing from any human source, but through Jesus Christ.

However, if you look at Galatians 1:18, we get a different picture. Paul states that he went to Jerusalem, and there, he gets acquainted with (most translations translate ιστορησαι as visit or the like, but it actually suggest something a little more intimate. It implies that Peter got to actually know Peter and learns from him. And staying with him for 15 days suggests that Paul had a lot to learn). So we do get a little difference here. However, none of that actually has to do with what you quoted from me.

Galatians 2 actually speaks about how the pillars of the Jerusalem church, (Peter, James, and John) gave Paul (and Barnabas) the right hand of fellowship (verse 9) and agreed that they should go to the Gentiles. As in, the supported the mission, and in effect, sent them out. They [the pillars of the church] acknowledged that he had been entrusted the mission to the Gentiles.

this goes negative against paul

Not really. Especially when all that Paul is said is taken into context.

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

That's not true. For the most part, we don't see much dispute. There really are only two major ones, and they are not really full out assaults or anything.

Even the situation you mention wasn't really a fight. Paul confronts Peter, and that really is it. There is no real mention of a fight. And just to be clear, Peter isn't said to not be eating Kosher. He is simply said to be eating with Gentiles. There is a difference. Also, it wasn't said that "real" apostles were the ones who "busted" him. In fact, he isn't said to have been busted, just that James' people came.

So how do you reconcile the fact that James (who was never a follower of Jesus (as far as we know), was not sent out by Jesus, was not one of the 12, and really, seems to have even been opposed (to a point), to Jesus) was somehow an apostle? I don't think you have state Paul wasn't an apostle and at the same time say James was.

we also know he left the real apostles ticked off.

We don't know that. Can you point to some support? Because it appears that the Jerusalem church continued to support him regardless.

says who?, paul.

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

Your bias shines through here. Paul didn't create fiction about Jesus at all. You have yet to even support this idea. Also, dreams are not mentioned. He had a "vision" and he really doesn't go into too much detail. Now, according to many scholars, Paul actually does take from tradition, that at the core, there was something solid.

Examining the writings of Paul though, we do see that he hardly talks about Jesus at all. So I don't see where you get the idea that he created all this fiction about Jesus. Again, he hardly talks about Jesus.

C.H. Dodd, who has been immensely influential on the subject, taught that Paul's message did in fact share a basic structure with the early church. This is a general consensus among scholars. Calvin Roetzel, in the book of his I mentioned in the OP, has a chapter just on the Traditions behind the Letters. As Roetzel states (pg 73), "Paul drew on church tradition and scripture, cited a primitive Christian kerygma (gospel), repeated liturgical formulas, quoted Christian hymns, prayers, and confessions, and used traditional ethical admonitions." Paul in fact wasn't making things up, he relied quite a bit on tradition as well.

wow he got two things right!! amazing

So do you admit that you are wrong? That really was my point. Paul mentions other things as well, but I thought two points illustrated that you were wrong in your claim anyway. And as I showed above, Paul did rely on tradition as well.

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.

Actually, every source we have agrees that Paul was a Jew. That really isn't questioned. It is clear that he was born a Jew, and practiced Judaism. This is something pretty much all scholars agree on. How good of a Jew he was is debated, but that is a different topic.

So since Paul was a Jew (and there is no reason to doubt that, you even admitted that Paul was a Jew), he can't, by definition, be a God-fearer. It really is as simple as that.

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

Do you have a source that says anything about the road taxes that you are talking about? Because I don't think that is accurate.

The only taxes charged for using the roads were import and export taxes. That allowed many to travel freely. So it wasn't too difficult to use the roads, as in, it wasn't expensive. So to answer your question, no.

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.

No one has mentioned this because it has no historicity. It is simply a late tradition, that simply really isn't supportable by what our sources show. Honestly, I see this as purposeful intellectual dishonesty.

Ate roman food

I assume you mean non-Kosher food. And do you have a source? I know it is suggested that Paul ate with Gentiles, but that doesn't mean he didn't keep Kosher. One can keep Kosher and still eat with Gentiles.

preached to romans

Again, where is the evidence? Paul did send a letter to the Romans; however, there is no suggestion that they are Roman citizens. They are Romans simply because they live in Rome.

died like a roman

Nope.

preached no circumcision like a roman

That is also inaccurate. Paul preached that non-Jews did not have to be circumcised to enter into the mission. He still supported circumcision for Jews. There is a difference.

literate like a roman

And no Jew was literate? That is hardly believable when the literacy rate in Palestine was 1-3%. So rare, yes, but it certainly doesn't imply one is a Roman citizen.

had a buisiness and money like that of a roman

He was a tent maker. Not necessarily and more of a business then being a fisherman. They were jobs. Also, there isn't much suggestion that Paul had a lot of money. Maybe some, but so did many other Jews. Also, many Roman citizens also were poor. The two really are not connected.

is written about, and cliamed a roman citizen

He is claimed to be a Roman citizen only by one source, and as I showed in the OP, that is doubtful. As for being written about, so was Jesus, and many other non-Roman citizens.

paul claims to be kinsman to Herodion

Who was a Jew and had no logical connection with being a Roman citizen.

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

You haven't shown this to be true. In fact, as I showed in my OP, most either don't use Acts when it doesn't agree with Paul, or state that it is doubtful. In fact, most, if not all recent works on Paul do not mention him being a Roman citizen. That is primarily because they don't use Acts.

This seems like your claim that all Encyclopedias still claim that Paul is a Roman citizen, when in fact, as I showed, the Encyclopedia Britannica no longer states that Paul is a Roman citizen.


Now, it does seem as if you are confusing Gentile, with Roman. And Roman with Roman citizen. Being a Roman, does not mean you are a Roman citizen. And really, anyone in the Roman empire could be considered a Roman. But they couldn't be considered a Roman citizen.

Most of your argument seems to rest on the idea that Roman citizens are somehow different in the way the walk, talk, and live in general. However, that ignores the fact that Roman citizens were from all walks of life. There were poor Roman citizens. There were Jews who were Roman citizens. There were really rich people who were Roman citizens. You can't distinguish a Roman citizen by what they eat or the like.

In the end, you really don't have an argument. Everything that you have used thus far falls through the floor. And it all seems to boil back to you not liking Paul. And a want to set Jesus against Paul (you did claim that Paul would be an enemy of Jesus because Paul was a Roman citizen).

 

[fallingblood]

Now to Cynthia.

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.

Do you have some sources of immigration laws in the Roman Empire, in the first century? As far as I have seen, they really didn't have any policy on immigration, as none were needed.

Also, there were many people who were not Roman citizens, who seemed to travel about freely. Look at all of the Jews who did for the variety of festivals in Jerusalem (and remember, many came from the Diaspora). More so, you haven't shown that "merchants from Tarsus" had Latin rights. You simply assume it.

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

You haven't shown that he had any rights of a citizen though. And as I showed in my OP, the fact that he was beaten shows that he was not seen as a Roman citizen as it was outlawed to beat a roman citizen with rods (and 2 Cor. states that Paul had just that happen more than once).

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.

Most likely doesn't cut it. Especially when you don't show the evidence. More so, when Pompey made Tarsus a province, and Marc Atnthony declared it a free city, was nearly half a century before Paul is even thought to have been born. In that regard, it is probably some time before Paul's parents were even born. So you are assuming that Paul's family stayed in Tarsus for quite some time, and didn't at some later time, moved there.

We don't know if Paul's family came from Tarsus, or if they moved there at a later date. More so, your argument relies on could have been. That isn't definite. And then it ignores that Paul was not treated like any sort of Roman citizen. As in, he was beaten by rods, which was not something Romans citizens were supposed to be subject to. And according to Paul, he didn't seem to object.

Still maintaining Julius Caesar was Emperor?

Can you show me where he said that Julius Caesar was an Emperor? Like I mentioned before, I can't find it. Mainly because when one searches the thread, only you (and now me, addressing the issue) have mentioned Julius Caesar.

Caesar is not just used for Julius Caesar. There is also Caesar Augustus. So not defining who you are talking about is a problem. When you say Caesar, it doesn't always imply Julius Caesar. I know when I saw you say Caesar, I assumed Augustus, as most of my research deals with him, and I just take it for advantage.

In the end though, my argument in the OP still stands. You simply have not addressed it in any manner what so ever. I made an argument in the OP for Paul not being a Roman citizen, and backed it up with support. But one of the basic arguments is that Paul is not treated like a Roman citizen. That stands regardless of whether or not some of the residents of Tarsus prove to be Roman citizens.

 

[fallingblood]

No mention of wiki calling him a conspiracy theorist.

Wiki does not come out directly and state such. So I may have been misleading. However, Wiki does say that he subscribes to conspiracy theories, and has gained attention of conspiracy theorists (note 37).

No mention of a bad bias either.

I didn't say that Wiki stated he had a bad bias. I should have separated the two statements more. From reading his work though, I was stating he had a bad bias.

 

[outhouse]

the Encyclopedia Britannica no longer states that Paul is a Roman citizen.

ah yes written using ep sanders as a source and only him, and is pushing "the new perspective" which is not mainstream and heavily criticized.

those also criticized are a few of the other scholars you have mentioned.

as well if your not a memeber, you cant read the whole article to verify if your findings are correct.


New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is often noted that the singular title "the new perspective" gives an unjustified impression of unity. It is a field of study in which many scholars are actively pursuing research and continuously revising their own theories in light of new evidence, and who do not necessarily agree with each other on any given issue


now this fits you perfectly, you dont agree with many on any given issue. You have a need to win a debate, despite taking a loosing position.

 

[fallingblood]

ah yes written using ep sanders as a source and only him, and is pushing "the new perspective" which is not mainstream and heavily criticized.

those also criticized are a few of the other scholars you have mentioned.

as well if your not a memeber, you cant read the whole article to verify if your findings are correct.


New Perspective on Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is often noted that the singular title "the new perspective" gives an unjustified impression of unity. It is a field of study in which many scholars are actively pursuing research and continuously revising their own theories in light of new evidence, and who do not necessarily agree with each other on any given issue


now this fits you perfectly, you dont agree with many on any given issue. You have a need to win a debate, despite taking a loosing position.

First, the Wiki link you posted is hardly credible. The neutrality of the post is questioned, and if you look at the Talks section on it, you can see that.

Also, it still shows that you were wrong when you stated all Encyclopedias still claim Paul was a Roman. The fact is, they don't. For someone who admits when they are wrong, you seem to be having a hard time doing so.

As for it being heavily criticized, the article only said that in regards to conservative Reformed circles. Not really a big deal though. Among Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, it is has been received favorably.

Also, I don't see the article saying it isn't mainstream. In fact, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright are all very well respected scholars who are seen as authorities by many. They definitely are in the mainstream.

It really seems like you are just attacking the messenger instead of the message. That really isn't a logical approach. Also, I don't see how it is my fault, or even a problem that you would have to pay for a source to read it? Does that make it less credible? I don't see why you have a problem with that.

As for E.P. Sanders being the only source, that is flat out wrong. He is the main contributor, but he also lists many sources.

Finally, your last statement is nothing more than a blatant attack. Again, instead of dealing with the message, you attack the messenger. That doesn't discredit what I said. It really is just intellectual dishonest, at best.

As for taking a loosing position, and not agreeing with many. I did cite a number of scholars I agree with, and support my position. I don't see how my position is a loosing one when you can't even make a logical or credible argument against it.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't see how my position is a loosing one when you can't even make a logical or credible argument against it.

Your "tour de force" is withstanding the naysayers well. Stay the course.

fallingblood = 1
outhouse = 0
CynthiaCypher = 0

You have a need to win a debate, despite taking a loosing position.

For the record, I really admire how fallingblood has handled himself throughout the debate. I do understand how that could be problematic for those on the "losing" side because, well, it sucks to be wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

You don't even know who the Emperor is.

Cynthia, diversion and pettiness do not an argument make, it simply squanders credibility.

Now, once again, you argue:

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

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

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your "tour de force" is withstanding the naysayers well. Stay the course.

fallingblood = 1
outhouse = 0
CynthiaCypher = 0

For the record, I really admire how fallingblood has handled himself throughout the debate.

Perhaps, but I believe we would be far better served if he would focus on matters relevant to the OP. :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., there were many people who were not Roman citizens, who seemed to travel about freely. Look at all of the Jews who did for the variety of festivals in Jerusalem (and remember, many came from the Diaspora). More so, you haven't shown that "merchants from Tarsus" had Latin rights. You simply assume it. You haven't shown that he had any rights of a citizen though.

Precisely.

And as I showed in my OP, the fact that he was beaten shows that he was not seen as a Roman citizen as it was outlawed to beat a roman citizen with rods (and 2 Cor. states that Paul had just that happen more than once).

fallingblood, is it possible that you're overstating your case? First, I suspect that you're referring to the following from 2 Cor 11:

21 I say it to your shame; perhaps we have been too weak. Whatever bold claims anyone makes -- now I am talking as a fool -- I can make them too.
22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I.
23 Are they servants of Christ? I speak in utter folly -- I am too, and more than they are: I have done more work, I have been in prison more, I have been flogged more severely, many times exposed to death.
24 Five times I have been given the thirty-nine lashes by the Jews;
25 three times I have been beaten with sticks; once I was stoned; three times I have been shipwrecked, and once I have been in the open sea for a night and a day;
26 continually travelling, I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from brigands, in danger from my own people and in danger from the gentiles, in danger in the towns and in danger in the open country, in danger at sea and in danger from people masquerading as brothers;

This strikes me as an almost pitiful and embarrassing attempt at self-validation, and one can easily imagine embellishment (or fabrication) on his part. But that aside:

• I see nothing here about Romans.
• And turning to Acts, and given the two claims that Paul was a Roman citizen and was beaten by the Romans, and given your suggestion that its author sometimes errs in his facts, it is unclear to me why one could not (or should not) accept the citizenship claim while dismissing the story.
• And, finally, while one might accept as fact that Roman citizens were legally exempt from being beaten, it in no way follows that Roman citizens were never beaten any more than it is reasonable to believe that the empire was exempt from civil rights violations.

Perhaps you project more certainty than is warranted?

 

[cablescavenger]

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

He is that much of a conspiracy theorist that he was entrusted with getting hold of the dead sea scrolls? I think not.

Just because he then went on to use the dead sea scrolls along with early Chruch writings to illustrate that the message according to those documents was different to those Paul sent doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist.

He might not be on message, but a couple of hours going through the lost Gospels will tell you he has a very good point.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So is there information that Paul (Was not) a Roman citizen?

If what is attributed to Paul in Acts isn't credible then is any of Acts credible?

Are the statements in Acts false and if they are then why this long drawn out display in Acts by the writer as to what Paul said?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I feel that Eisenman and, for that matter, Maccoby, are too easily discounted ...

 

[outhouse]

First, the Wiki link you posted is hardly credible.

Yet you are no one other then a hobbiest, to try and discount it.

Its wonderful you challenge the information, it should be challenged and corrected if wrong.


But so far your arguements are more personal opinion then anything else.



scholars argue these points, people are on both sides of the fence on this exact issue. but in reality, were talking 80% for a roman citizenship and 20% undecided that ONLY want to question it

 

[outhouse]

I feel that Eisenman and, for that matter, Maccoby, are too easily discounted ...

They are, thats the best thing you have stated in this thread.


Atleast they are not the only people claiming roman citizenship

 

[outhouse]

Also, I don't see the article saying it isn't mainstream. In fact, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright are all very well respected scholars who are seen as authorities by many. They definitely are in the mainstream.

Not with this view.

instead of dealing with the message, you attack the messenger. That doesn't discredit what I said. It really is just intellectual dishonest, at best.

No, im not attacking. But the message isnt backed nor followed. At best, even your new perspective is only silent on the matter, they are smart enough not to claim he wasnt a citizen.

again, they only question it. As it should be questioned

when you can't even make a logical or credible argument against it.

I have made many, because you personaly discount them using a fringe position to back it, then twist the statements to fit your needs. Well thats intellectual dishonety

 

[outhouse]

Your "tour de force" is withstanding the naysayers well. Stay the course.

fallingblood = 1
outhouse = 0
CynthiaCypher = 0



For the record, I really admire how fallingblood has handled himself throughout the debate. I do understand how that could be problematic for those on the "losing" side because, well, it sucks to be wrong.

would you like to add to the debate?

FB likes to steer a debate, he wants you to play his game so that he will always be right.

I choose not to fall into that style of debate sorry