If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

Do the majority of scholars support your view?  I never see this as a major argument articulated by scholars.

It seems to me, that during this time period, the Romans and the Jews had a complicated on again - off again relationship.   I also think that it is incorrect to compare modern practices to those of 1st century Rome (anachronistic fallacy).  During the time of Jesus (and Paul) they where trying to get along with the Jews,  shortly after, was the Jewish war.  There was a tension and power struggle between the two.   I don't think that the Romans had any problem with killing people, but the question is, would they have allowed the Jewish authorities to do so.  I'm certainly not any kind of authority or expert in this area, but given my knowledge of their relationship and the behavior of the Romans I think that the answer is it's complicated. It fluctuated and what they allowed or didn't allow depended on that complicated relationship which could change rapidly.

It seems that we jumped topics completely now (leaping more than creeping).   I have discussed this recently, and you are going to have to support your claims with more than fanciful stories, like with evidence and reason.

Have we?  

No, we have not.  I directly answered questions you asked.  Yes, it is the majority opinion of new testament scholarship that the bulk of what is attributed to paul and about paul is not authentic.  The majority of the paul as persecutor tidbits we have are in legendary paul.  Limiting ourselves to authentic paul, we find a trivial and vague claim...that -must- be trivial and vague..or else it would not support either the person of paul or the dating of the authentics.

Ok... more to the context of the thread, I'm going to ask what the evidence and reasons for these claims is.  As I stated above, I don't think that you have much more than textual criticism for these.  So perhaps we can discuss the nature of this evidence and what it implies.  Understand what the evidence is specifically, and then discuss how that should apply to your claims.  

And I think that it is off topic, because you jumped from another claim about Paul to something else about Paul.  However the purpose of the thread was to discuss evidence, and apparently what "only if theist understood"   Your purpose seems to be something else.