Paul's "persecution" of the early Christians?

[Drich]

LOL< was he, by whom?

It's just absurd to claim that a Roman citizen could persecute a Roman subject.  Even in colonial America, people were hanged for such offenses.

---

You were being told that Paul was a Roman citizen, you didn't listen. There was a difference in being a Roman citizen and a Roman subject. Roman citizens had many rights, Roman subjects had few to none. The Romans were having enough trouble with the Jews at the time to worry about a man persecuting his own people, to them this amounted to help rather than a problem. Jesus being a Roman subject was by manipulation able to be arrested by non-Roman citizens and tried and found guilty outside a Roman court. Pilate himself found it easier to allow the Jews to fight among themselves because it distracted them from rebellion against the Roman Empire.

GC

What a bunch of crap.  Pilate did NOT allow the Jews to fight amongst themselves.  Who arrested Jesus in the Temple?  The Romans!

Pilate had little control over the Jews which is why he was recalled shortly after the death of Christ for mis managing Jerusalem.

---

LOL< was he, by whom?

by the temple leadership and those in the government looking to squash "the way." The same people who commissioned Paul upon His request.

---

LOL< was he, by whom?

It's just absurd to claim that a Roman citizen could persecute a Roman subject.  Even in colonial America, people were hanged for such offenses.

---

Seriously? in all of History you can't thik ofone instance where a 'subject' of the state can be treated as a non human/with out regard to their basic rights? Where a citizen of a state could beat or even kill a subject without any reprisal?

What about the slaves colonial America used? what about the indians? What if an 'uppity slave' claimed to be the son of God and he hadn't yet but the fear would be he turn on the government once he emassed enough slaves to ? (which he was doing) Do you think Washington would have given two squirt about some preacher who kills that slave or his followers in order to keep the peace among the citizens of the country?

---

Rome isn't exactly famous for treating jewish zealots causing trouble in their provinces with gratitude.

Exactly!

---

Jerusalem (as well as ever other roman held territory was a state of Rome.) laws in that state concerning the destruction of Christians was not against any Roman 'constitutional law.'

What "laws" might those be, dickhead?  Please cite them so we can all learn what you alone seem to know.

Do you ever know what you are talking about?

your question indicates you are unable to follow the analogy given. Maybe have one of your buddies follow the conversation a little better. You are too far behind for me to go back and help without the topic going off the rails

---

Rome isn't exactly famous for treating jewish zealots causing trouble in their provinces with gratitude.

The Romans arrested and often executed ANYONE who was causing trouble within the Empire; the local authorities were free to do the same, as long as they were obedient to Rome (hence, federalism).  If Paul did arrest individuals on his own, such would have been an affront to both the local authorities as well as their Roman overlords, but if he was only making such outlandish claims as part of his story, then the Romans and local governors may have written him off as just being a crank, at least for awhile.  But, as his stories spread, they may have taken him to task over it; as such, he may have been arrested, tried and executed, not for his religious beliefs, but for having spread political and false rumors throughout the Empire.

Paul did not arrest people on his own he was given authority via the temple/herod in an effort to reel in disodent factions already under the subjugation of Rome.

---

Paul was apart of the official roman effort to stop the spread of this rebellious faction tht had the jews all up in a tizzy.