Historical Plausibility of Paul's Story

So, all you have to do to avoid being hideously tortured is to state that you are a Roman citizen, and then everybody bows down and treats you with respect. Yep, his saying so is pretty compelling evidence that Paul was really a Roman citizen.

I have a real hang up on the name change thingy. Saul leaves Jerusalem. Paul shows up in Damascus. My take is that the Christian Paul, knowing what Saul's intentions are, follows him out of Jerusalem, kills him on the road, steals his identity and the various letters of introduction or whatever Saul would have had on him to establish his identity and legitimacy to the authorities in Damascus, and goes on to preach the Christian gospel there. He has trouble keeping his new name straight, but notices that nobody cares what he calls himself, so he just resumes the Paul name (note that even today no-one seems very concerned with the name change). There is no logical way to disprove this scenario, so it must be accurate.On the other hand, a person of Saul's high station and wealth would not have taken such a long and dangerous journey alone. You don't just pull on your Adidas and jog 500 miles through the desert. He would have had a fairly large entourage with him. Where are the accounts of these additional people who would have witnessed the events of the journey, or at least would have heard Saul's first hand and immediate account of the incidents?

You have completely misunderstood my point. The point is not what it takes to convince me of Saul's/Paul's Romanhood, but what it takes to convince the Romans. If I understand your bible quotes, S/P was not concerned about being put on trial, convicted of something, and then punished. He was concerned about being tortured as part of the investigative, pretrial procedure.

Thank you for the clarification. In light of this new (to me) evidence, my theory is obviously invalid. Can I hang up the phone now? I'm still curious as to the significance of the name change.