Meanwhile most of the original twelve Apostles, led by James the Just, stayed in the Roman province of Judea while Peter wavered between the two factions of the sect (Jewish Christians on the right side, and Gentile Christians as the breakaway group) and tried to figure out what to do.Titus, the son (and eventual successor) of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, solved Peter's problem for him by sacking Jerusalem and razing it to the ground in 70 CE, and scattering/enslaving most of the Jews, including Jewish Christians, leaving Paul's network of Gentile Christian communities intact.He makes no mention of Jesus' Galilean ministry, or that he was accompanied by twelve disciples.
No records of him ever visiting the kings and other powerful authority figures he supposedly held audiences with, no Jewish records of a Christian-hunter gone rogue, etc.
and observant Jew (Philemon 3:6, Galatians -14, Acts 22:3-4), fiercely opposed to the new messianic sect founded by Jesus of Nazareth, called the Way (Acts 9:2; Acts ; Acts 19:9, Acts ), which would later become Christianity as we know it; he persecuted Nazarenes (i.e., the first followers of Jesus movement: Acts 24:5) all over the Jewish Diaspora (Acts , 8:1-4, 9:1-2, Acts 9:5, -14, Acts , 22:3-4, 26:9-11, Acts ; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians , Galatians ; Philemon 3:6; 1 Timothy ).
This lasted until his alleged conversion following a vision on the road to Damascus, in Syria.
The problem with teasing out the historical facts about Paul's conversion and life is that he was fairly scanty in providing details about himself in the epistles and that Acts is a problematic source for Paul's life, given its contradictions with what Paul actually wrote in the epistles.
Even if we restrict ourselves to only what Paul wrote about himself, we know from more modern examples that it's not unusual to "beef up" one's prior skepticism to make the conversion seem all the greater.