Again, he was a very powerful, prosperous, well known Pharisee, at the top of the religious power structure of his day. You want us to believe he traded all that in for all the stuff he suffered, to become one of the people he persecuted, based on stuff he made up himself? Utter hogwash.
---
1) Paul wrote he was a
Pharisee, a group of Jews who represented the common people. The elite
Sadducees were the upper class.
The Pharisees were part of the ruling class. As such, Saul, you do know that was his name then, had a lot of power, enough that he was given authority to imprison and persecute Christians. Yeah, that's going to make him want to be one of them.
2) Paul was well educated and a religious zealot. Having a big ego with a need to be a leader/converter, his personality was well suited for debate, persistence, and social vindication, even if he had to tolerate abuse.
Again, wrong. Saul was eager to PERSECUTE, not debate or persuade. Note that he was ferreting out Christians wherever he could find them, and taking action against them, not engaging them in debate.
3) His eventual successful leadership based on his "new" Jewish/Gentile gospel, using persuasive references to Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and Son of God (& his BS "vision" of J's resurrection), reinforced his zealous personality and tolerance for abuse from the traditional Jews and Romans.
Bogus on its face. Egomaniacs typically do not set themselves up for persecution. Instead, they set themselves up at the highest pinnacle of power they can reach. I do not recall Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, etc identifying with the cultures they overthrew, relinquishing the reins of power, and attempting to gain influence by leading those overthrown. Saul already HAD power, and to become one of the Christians was to relinquish that power, not increase it.
4) Evidence of his behavioral reinforcement:
Paul founded several churches in Asia Minor and Europe, using his status as both a Jew & Roman citizen to advantage in his ministry to uneducated, confused & god-fearing Jewish and Roman audiences.
Actually, the churches included people from all segments of society. Paul would debate and preach openly. So much so, in fact, that he, as I mentioned before, had the snot beat out of him on multiple occasions. Hardly a hallmark of an egomaniac who already held a lot of power.
From a social science perspective (cultural anthropology, sociology, politics, psychology), the Bible stories are reflective of ancient mythology mixed with embellished autobiographical writings.
I'm sure you'd like to continue believing that, but your "analysis" of Paul is, quite simply, about as far off the mark as is possible.