lol...
True.
I'm simply trying to show you that there's a mixed bag to your claims - some true and some completely false. There were many hardships that are common to someone who travelled as extensively as he did. And there were hardships that came exclusively as a result of preaching.
"My claims are not completely false!!!"
Well, that is the claim. THere is another claim about Paul. That claim is from the Ebionites They claimed that Paul was a greek convert to Judaism trying to court the daughter of the High priest, and when that failed, he became bitter and apostate. That is a story that was relayed by Epiphanius. There is some indication that this is true. For example, when Paul quoted from the Jewish scriptures, he always used the LXX, not the Hebrew scriptures.
You prefer the celebration of ignorance?
That's sus. Epiphanius was a fourth century thinker who believed the Ebionites (whoever they were) were heretics, for starters. And there's the issue that the very first mention of the Ebionites was out of Irenaeus' against heresies writings - which was written in 180, a full 120 years after the death of Paul. There's no real evidence that a group with this name even existed outside of Irenaeus' writings. Paul confronted some of these Jewish-Christian hybrids in his letter to Galatia (48AD) that may fit the bill as Ebionites, but it's highly speculative that we're talking about the same group.
I don't think it's highly unlikely at all. There are plenty of first century ossuary to their family tribes that we have unearthed over the years. Also there are first century Mishna references to tribal affiliation (non-Levite). Of course, the more common the first century Jew, the less likely the knowledge of the tribe, and less likely he would even care.
For the rest of this, I can only personally attest that religious rules suck. Everyone that's been on the wrong end of oppressive rules-based religion can attest. Legalism crushes people, it is no honor and it is no delight. The fact that much of Paul's writings revolve around the freedom of Christ, completely conveys that he was intimately familiar with that pressure.
Does that stop him from reporting they thought the Paul was a convert? That only reinforces my other points about Pauls lack of knowledge, and his attitudes.
I'd suggest that your worldview is both skewed and very narrow if all you genuinely see about religion is that it "isolates" and is "nothing but a weapon."
So you're one of the people who think the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, the corruption of the Catholic Church and all the American "fake preacher/evangelicals" ,the current campaign against women, gays and minorities have nothing to do with religion? Hmmm. Well. I don't know what to say to that.
You're right: You don't know what to say, and you've just proven that (and also embarrassed yourself with the little "So you're one of the people" gambit).
Of course not, but we don't even know if "they" existed. And if the Ebionites did exist, the first mention of them was decades after Paul had died. Just an odd charge revealed centuries later, by a group that may or may not exist, without any real support whatsoever. Just no.
That's true.
You could have just stopped there!
Well if the shoe fits...
Maybe because that's what they were taught or indoctrinated to believe and accept, no questions asked. Religion doesn't seem to like being questioned or challenged.
You don't know anything.
Of course, no where in scripture does it say Scripture alone. That means that people who say 'Scripture alone' are adding to scripture, which makes the scripture alone stance violating the principle of scripture alone.