A pet ruler who had to answer to Caesar, the real king of the Jews.
Can you show a quote anywhere that Caesar was considered the king of the Jews? The Emperors were never given that title.
Yes, ultimately, Herod answered to Caesar. However, Herod was a client king. Judea was a client state of the Empire. It was under direct rule of King Herod.
Now, if King of the Jews was just a friendly title given to King Herod; why didn't any of his sons get the Title? If it was a title that really meant nothing, why didn't the emperor just not give it to one of Herod's son's?
The key here though is that we are talking about a client state, and that no emperor was considered king of the Jews.
There is no fixing of your blunder. Any reference to the Land of Israel as "Palestine" is an attempt to replace no only the Theology of the Jew but even the Land of the Jew. There was never a "Palestinian" and there isn't any. The name is Land of Israel.
"Palestine was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands."
Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yes, Palestine is the correct term, as it references the area I was talking about. It is a modern term scholars use in order to designate that specific geographical area.
Paul had indeed been a Hellenistic Jew, the son of well-to-do Hellenistic Jewish parents from the city Greek of Tarsus, one of the first cities to be conquered by the Romans. His parents became Romans and eventually Paul inherited it by being born one. Paul himself declared it so. (Acts 21:39)
Paul never wrote Acts. Acts is of dubious nature when it comes to Paul, as it contradicts or disagrees with various statements that Paul stated.
As for Paul being a Roman citizen, that is of questionable. In 2 Corinthians 11:25, Paul states that three times he was beaten by rods. Roman citizens were exempt from such a punishment. Also, Paul never mentions being a Roman citizen in any of his letters. It never comes up, even though there were plenty or times to slip that in. As for his parents, we have pretty much no information about them. Paul never mentions them in any sort of detail.
As for the idea of Hellenized Jew; just because one was born in the Diaspora, that did not make them a Hellenized Jew. That seems to be the only argument you have for the idea of Paul being Hellenized Jew. Also, to accept the idea that Paul wasn't a Pharisee, you have to ignore what Acts and the Pauline Epistles state. All you're doing is picking and choosing what fits your preconceived biases.
What James believed was what the real followers of Jesus in the Sect of the Nazarenes believed. That's what he told Paul in his second visit to Jerusalem. That the the thousands of their converts had become Jewish and become zealolus of the Law. (Acts 21:20)
Again, we have no information about the Sect of the Nazarenes during the time of James and Paul. The majority of the information we get is from 3rd or 4th century, and must be taken with a large grain of salt. So you can't state what the Nazarenes believed, because simply, we aren't told of it until much much later. The NT simply states that Paul was the ringleader of a sect called the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). So obviously, the NT is disagreeing with what you've stated (as if James was doing what the Nazarenes believed, he obviously followed Paul, the ringleader according to the NT).
More so, Galatians 2:6-10 specifically says that James, Cephas, and John, the Pillars of the Jerusalem group, gave the right to preach to the Gentiles to Paul and Barnabas. They recognized that Paul was entrusted with the message to the Gentiles. They supported Paul. James allowed Paul to continue with his mission.
Also, here is also a place that states specifically that Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter is the Apostle to the Jews.
As a side note, Acts 15 also states that Paul was welcomed by the Apostles and elders of the group in Jerusalem. That he was supported.
That's an advice I give to you: You must read what paul states himself. "If the dead won't resurrect, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." (I Cor. 15:32) That's the Pauline conditional faith in God worthy menstrual rags. He was ready to make a carnival out of his life is the dead did not resurrect.
Read the entire chapter. Taking one verse, out of context, simply won't win anyone over. Especially when it is basically stating the opposite of what you are implying.
Paul was making an argument as to why the church could know that Jesus had resurrected, that the dead did in fact resurrect. There was never the question that Jesus didn't resurrect. Paul states that clearly in that chapter.
As a clincher, I Corinthians 15:33 (the very next verse) states: Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character. 34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of GodI say this to your shame.
Paul is reprimanding the very idea that you said he supported.
Not true. You are not reading between the lines.
I will just refer you to my response above.
After a whole year of teaching about Jesus as Christ, the disciples started being called Christians for the first time. Therefore, it is only obvious that Christians started with Paul. (Acts 11:19-26)
Again, you simply ignore what I've said. Acts 11:26 never states that the term Christian had anything to do with Christianity. It never states Paul started the movement. It never states Paul was a Christian. You are reading what you want to read. Simply it isn't supported by the text.