Paul was a roman citizen, and Gmark was writing to a roman audience, which would place him as a roman, and paul took his message straight to the roman/gentile communities.
In another thread, you said that Acts had no credibility. In fact, you told me to forget Acts. Yet now you are using Acts to make a point, as it is the only place that even suggests Paul was a Roman citizen. You can't have it both ways, and really, you're only using selective reading here.
As for Mark, it doesn't matter who he was writing to. First, he we don't know who he was writing to, unless by Romans you mean individuals in the Roman Empire, and by doing so the idea or a Roman is simply pointless as it means nothing. Second, Jews also wrote to "Roman" audiences. Third, just because a "Roman" reads a work, that doesn't make the author a "Roman." There just is no logic there.
As for Paul taking his message to the Roman/gentile community (Roman and gentile are not interchangeable. The fact that you continue to use them as such suggests you have no idea what a Roman is) means nothing. He didn't take his message to people following the Roman religion, and even if he did, those individuals rejected their old beliefs anyway. Meaning, what "Romans" may have believed has no bearing on what this proto-Christian group believed. And it certainly doesn't mean they saw God or gods in the same way.
these two books are the foundation and backbone of the NT, add Luke and Acts, you have little you could ever attribute to a jew, even Matthew used the roman foundation of Gmark. no real jew would ever do. And Gjohn while starting out as a jewish movement that broke away from judaism, took on more gentiles over the years then jews as paul did.
These two books are the foundation
Paul isn't a book. And it is questionable that Mark was a foundation and backbone of the NT. Mark wasn't produced in a vacuum. In fact, he was using previous sources. More so, Luke and Matthew, as well as John, were all using different sources, some of which (like Q) appear to be very Jewish. Not to mention we don't even know the other sources that are being used.
More so, if you actually look at Mark, Luke, Acts, etc, you can find many Jewish ideas in each of them. As for Matthew, we have no idea if Mark has a "Roman" foundation. Many have actually stated that Mark was a Jew. Not to mention that Mark was using earlier sources which are most likely Jewish.
Also, Jews did use non-Jewish sources. I don't know why you would even claim such. That just shows you have no idea about the subject. Josephus, and Philo both used non-Jewish sources. Jews today continue to use non-Jewish sources. If you look at the OT, and intertestamental works, you can also see influence of non-Jewish sources. The sources in which one uses does not dictate what that author is.
So the fact that you said no real Jew would do that simply is illogical and has no actually ground in reality.
Gods are gods, and yes all gods people or imagination are all viewed differently, but worshipped none the less.
Clearly then you have no idea of the hierarchy that existed in the Roman pantheon. Gods were not just gods. There were huge difference, and many were not even worshipped.
and that is my point, mortal people yes in a hierarchy were viewed as deities and divine and worshipped, and many of jesus attributations per the best scholars, competed with roman emporers, talking to large crowds like a roman emporer, being called a "son of god" which started with roman emporers before jesus, and being divine, imagine that just like a roman emporer. and worshipped like a roman emporer, Because it was written by romans for romans who were worshipping judaism but wouldnt convert.
What scholars? Because I have read many scholars, and the stuff you're saying has no basis in what they have written. The fact that most scholars are aware the the term "Son of God" was used in the Hebrew scriptures shows that your statement simply is wrong. This was long before the Roman Empire.
Also, "Romans" could convert to Judaism. There was nothing against that, and in fact many did. Most who followed Judaism but didn't convert did it because of the issue of circumcision.
More so, these works weren't written for "Romans" for Romans." They were written by Jews, and proto-Christians for Jews and proto-Christians. Jesus also was not worshipped like a Roman Emperor. I'm thinking you have no idea about Roman religion at all because there really is no basis for such a statement.
The largest portion of christianity started from god-fearers, as jesus movement failed in judaism. And the gospels make romans out to be inoccent like Pilate, when he was a bloodthirsty tyrant.
Actually, it started in Judaism, and then went to God-Fearers, who were on the edge of Judaism. More so, the Jesus movement didn't really fail in Judaism until around the 4th century.
Also, the Gospels don't make all Romans out to be innocent. In fact, most still agree that they killed Jesus. They also demonize people like Herod, and that clan. Yes, they do take away responsibility from Pilate, but not from all Romans. Plus, if you read rest of the NT, there is quite a bit of damning material about the Romans.
My point is that you are comparing apples and oranges. What may be true for the Romans, and how they deified humans, has no bearing in Judaism and Christianity. Neither deified humans, besides with the exception of Jesus who was different anyway as he was equated with God. That is completely different from how Romans deified humans. All you're showing is a lack of knowledge on this subject.