Paul speaking only for himself (a question, not a debate)

Do you know why Paul had such power and connections with Rome ?His brother (Rufus Pudens, Romans 16) was a Senator, Paul himself was a Roman citizen. The Romans letter was addressed to the Church at Rome: which was the household of the conquered British-Seleurian king Caradoc, known as Caractacus. This vanquished chief was given in-house parole by the Roman senate instead of a death sentence as recorded by Tacitis. His daughter, Gladys (not to be confused with his wife of the same name) was adopted by the Emperor and he changed her name to Claudia. She married Rufus Pudens. While under subjugation, Caradoc was converted.It is to THIS household....Paul wrote "...to all that be at Rome".Paul was a doulos/slave of Christ - not Rome, as is witnessed by his martyrdom their at the hands of the Romans.Ray

Agreed. Never heard of this, not saying it doesn't exist. The key word here is "tradition". 2Timothy has Paul saying his death is eminent. A "tradition" is something that the generation in question accepted as fact, followed by every successive generation. A "legend" is a story that the generation in question rejected as fact BUT later re-appeared in other generations. The tradition of Paul's beheading is a tradition accepted by multiple quarters of christendom, from the British church, Rome, Jerusalem, and of course Antioch. These are compelling lines of evidence SINCE, in the 1st century, NO modern communication abilities existed. Such a "tale" would have never made it past Rome. The tradition of Paul's beheading is a fact, although Dr. Scott says there is ample evidence it actually came well after 2Timothy - that being a false alarm.Brian: are truth and accuracy synonymous ? By traditions and legends there is.While I degraded "legends" above; all are NOT untrue. If the legend corresponds with unconnected facts then historians have a basis.Legend says Thomas was martyred near Madras, India. The legend is supported by the fact that there is an ancient church at Mt. St. Thomas, India. The fact that we are talking INDIA shows there can be no bias since that land is ruled by non-christians.In addition, there exists NOT ONE shred of evidence contradicting any martyrdom legend or tradition. If the accounts are not true THEN surely history would betray and cough up something - yet nothing, zero, zip.Ray