I actually agree with that analysis completely, except for one small quibble: Paul/Saul of Tarsus was himself a Roman citizen (if I recall correctly, the speculation is that he was made a citizen rather than born one), in addition to his other identities. He himself represented the bridge between the three cultures: Greek (Tarsus was a Greek city/culture under Roman rule), Hebrew, and Roman. At different times, he refers to himself by each of those identities, to make points about the combination of values among those three distinct civilizations to form his own set, loosely based on the alleged teachings of Jesus the Messiah (many have noted the difference between Paulianity, as we call it, and Christianity, in the messaging, though as you note it may simply stem from the fact that the writings of Paul are for a specific purpose in guiding/admonishing the behavior of the churches, rather than Jesus the Christ's more general message).
As to your lecture about "common believer is a saint", we know. That's why I listed "the communion of saints" (the community of the gathered body of the church) among the Apostles' Creed, when I mentioned the "core doctrines" of which we are aware.
And who, exactly, would have wanted to kill Paul (outside of Jerusalem, I suppose) for making the declaration found in the first six verses of Romans? Particularly given that he was writing to people in Rome. I'm sorry, but I just don't see a lot of danger in that bold statement. Was it a shocking departure from the Jewish beliefs of the time? Well, yeah, since you couldn't even say the name of God without getting stoned! But it's hardly a death sentence for him to write about believing that the Davidic Messiah had come in the form of the man called Jesus, even in Jerusalem. Athronges, Theudas (Acts 5:36), and Judas Maccabeus were all considered Messiahs by some (or claimed to be, themselves), and were not killed by the Jews for saying so. Indeed, in Acts 5, even the Christian writers refer to Gamaliel's appeal to his fellow Sanhedrin to treat the Christian claims as equal to the other failed, false Messiahs from before, rather than doing them real harm, even as the Christians were being expelled from Jerusalem.
As to your lecture about "common believer is a saint", we know. That's why I listed "the communion of saints" (the community of the gathered body of the church) among the Apostles' Creed, when I mentioned the "core doctrines" of which we are aware.
And who, exactly, would have wanted to kill Paul (outside of Jerusalem, I suppose) for making the declaration found in the first six verses of Romans? Particularly given that he was writing to people in Rome. I'm sorry, but I just don't see a lot of danger in that bold statement. Was it a shocking departure from the Jewish beliefs of the time? Well, yeah, since you couldn't even say the name of God without getting stoned! But it's hardly a death sentence for him to write about believing that the Davidic Messiah had come in the form of the man called Jesus, even in Jerusalem. Athronges, Theudas (Acts 5:36), and Judas Maccabeus were all considered Messiahs by some (or claimed to be, themselves), and were not killed by the Jews for saying so. Indeed, in Acts 5, even the Christian writers refer to Gamaliel's appeal to his fellow Sanhedrin to treat the Christian claims as equal to the other failed, false Messiahs from before, rather than doing them real harm, even as the Christians were being expelled from Jerusalem.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
