Opinion of Paul the Apostle

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Paul is a complicated person, made moreso by the epistles attributed to him but likely not written by him. Without him, Christianity likely would've remained an obscure Jewish sect, last heard of in the tumults of the First Jewish Revolt.

His message is more in accord with modern sensibilities if you exclude writings such as the pastoral epistles attributed to him but almost certainly not written by him.

That said, his conversion story suffers from being falsifiable, tho his continued adherence in the face of adversity indicates that at minimum he wanted what he said to be true, even if it weren't.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not a huge Paul fan, but I think he's become something of a sin-eater for things people don't like about small-o orthodox Christianity and so most of the popular criticisms of him get on my nerves. The unusually stringent ~Christian sexual ethic~, for example, derives in large part straight from the mouth of Jesus, and Christian antisemitism is at least as evident in the Johannine writings as it is in the Pauline writings (Paul continued to identify as a Pharisee throughout his life, for goodness' sake!).

I don't understand how someone who wrote Romans 11 ( "all Israel will be saved" ) could be considered antisemitic.

Yeah.  And Trump is "totally not racist."

All those early Christian cultists fresh-off-the-boat had no choice but to throw their fellow Jews under the bus because it made converting Romans much easier.   Which was, after all, their ultimate goal.  

It was much more politically prudent to blame the Rabbi's crucifixion on "those people" as opposed to telling the truth:  Rome had Jeebus executed for insurrection.  

It's amazing how your posting style is so theatrically abrasive and unpleasant as to make the received, mostly-uncontroversial explanation for why the Gospels stress Jewish leaders' culpability in Jesus' death seem like an edgy Nu Atheist take.

Surprising to hear, actually.  I would assume it was a fringe theory.  It's not like I read anything academically justifying my "argument" other than what little I paid attention in Catholic school as a kid.

It's simply the only explanation that makes logical sense.  

These early Xtians folks weren't old bearded mystics who wandered the desert in humble robes.  They were businessmen and realpolitikers.  

Regarding the Gospels, the most interesting theory (though not the most pious) is that they reflect the relations between Christians and Jews at the time that they were written. Thus the Synoptics’ rhetoric against “the scribes and the Pharisees” reflects a time in which Christians and rabbis offered competing interpretations of tradition within one Jewish community; whereas John’s rhetoric against “the Jews” reflects a time in which Christians had been irrevocably separated from the Jewish community.

Regarding Paul, I’m sorry to tell you this, the only explanation that makes sense is that he was genuinely converted.

Yeah, the only real question that might sensibly be asked is whether the Road to Damascus actually happened as reported, or if it was something he devoutly wished had happened that way.