Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

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,

Hence the term, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

loosely based on the alleged teachings of Jesus the Messiah

That's the thing, what Jesus taught was freedom. Freedom from legalism, freedom from the bondage and chains the religious leaders of his day placed on the people. Freedom to Worship God with all of your being, no matter what that looked like, and freedom to love your neighbor as yourself.
Paul simply put the practical application of all of this freedom to work in the church. and if you study his works this freedom does not come in one singular set of rules but rather he set rules according to what people in a given region could handle.

(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).

In order for this distinction to be valid, one needs to have the two teaching conflict in their base doctrine.

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.

Not all are, keep in mind I have to speak to everyone not just you.

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.

It was commonly believed that the messiah was deliver the jewish people from the Roman authority, and at the time (After jesus before the destruction of the temple) tensions between jews and the romans were high. The romans sought any means to keep the jews under control, and the new christians (who were still considered to be jews by much of rome) were (leadership not the followers at that time) were targets for the Jews and the romans. Which is why Paul was imprisioned so many times beaten and stoned, and ultimatly imprisoned by rome/nero and executed/beheaded.

So if literal flogging, prision, stoning, and being beheaded is not to be considered 'dangerous' by you then on that note I will have to conceed to your point.