No evidence outside of "Paul" (or, "Pauls") exists to support the earliest one's claim that he persecuted anyone, along with his claim that he was publicly flogged (twice) by "the Jews". You can't have it both ways -- if Paul was doing official work by and for Rome, he could not have been punished by the local rulers, but if he was acting on his own, then the Romans would have punished him.
It just doesn't add up, but if you see him as a delusional epileptic with a personality disorder who was given to flights of fancy and religious extremes, then, yes, things begin to make sense. He could lie all he wanted, and no one would give a damn until those lies spread to the point where they were starting to cause the official rulers problems, and that's what probably got the (early) Paul arrested and then executed.
It just doesn't add up, but if you see him as a delusional epileptic with a personality disorder who was given to flights of fancy and religious extremes, then, yes, things begin to make sense. He could lie all he wanted, and no one would give a damn until those lies spread to the point where they were starting to cause the official rulers problems, and that's what probably got the (early) Paul arrested and then executed.
