Acts17apologetics really like their saints; Paul was persecuted?

In answer to the video "Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)"

His preaching in synagogues was met with fierce resistance due to his bad mouthing the Law, and not even in a clever way. For instance contrary to repeated descriptions made of the law in the HB as "life giving" in places like Ezekiel20:11,33:14-15 or Nehemiah9:26-29 as well as spiritually preserving, a purifying delight to observe Ps119, a sentiment clearly reflected in James' writings, Paul sees the law as "stirring" into sin and death. Without it, one

Rom7"would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

As if non religious people cannot discern basic moral principles such as these? Paul's inspired "reasoning" leads him to the conclusion that without law there is no transgression Rom4:14. It is better to leave man without moral restrictions, so that he is only justified and judged according to faith in Jesus, something Jesus himself never taught.

But what this hateful perception of the Law shows, is that divine revelation has diametrically opposed effects on individuals depending on their own inner spiritual disposition. It is certainly repulsing to the depraved to have to abide by moral restrictions, while the God-conscious delights in serving the Creator according to His own terms, as amply stated in the HB. Paul saw himself as part of the first group, as he describes himself relentlessly tortured by a messenger from Satan 2Cor12:7.

Paul was disparaging the Law yet the agreement between him and the apostles was that he should seek non-Jews, while they went to the Jews Gal2:9.

He consequently escapes murderous Jews in most of his stops along his missionary journeys Acts14:19.

In Jerusalem, the Roman commander saves him from the Sanhedrin's grip and the Jews apparently were so eager in their murderous intents that they werent deterred from planning an assault on his Roman prison. A cohort of 500 Roman soldiers and imperial guards had to leave Jerusalem to be dispatched to this helpless fellow.

They protected and escorted him by night for a "proper" trial in Caesarea Acts21-24. Amazingly, Luke who is alleged to have authored Acts, reproduces the letter written by the Roman commander to his superior in Caesarea Acts23:26-30. The letter doesnt mention Paul and makes a chronological mistake. It says the commander rescued him because he knew Paul was a Roman citizen. He obviously had to, the probability of a Roman commander turning out to rescue a Jew from his brethren is very slim.

Yet we read in Acts22:23-29 that the commander rescued Paul from the Jews before he had learnt this information, after which he was given to the Sanhedrin for questionning. Besides that slip, did Luke have access to Roman archives to reproduce the letter? But then Luke also knows what was said in Antipas' apartments when he questioned Jesus Lk23:7-11, as well as what Festus and Agrippa said to each other in private concerning Paul Acts25:13-22. Probably all "God-breathed" details as noted by 2Tim3:16.

And why didnt James, the elders, or the "thousands" of Jesus converts, say a word in Paul's defense? Instead we have Roman troops rushing to his rescue to avoid hateful Jewish mobs murdering him. In Caesarea, he is presented before the Roman governor Felix. He served from the year 52 until the year 60. The head of the Sanhedrin was the Jewish high priest Ananias the son of Nebedeus. Historical records show instead that before Felix's appointment as governor, the high priest Ananias had been arrested and sent to Rome to plead his case, in the year 52. Josephus names the high priests during Felix's governorship, and says nothing about Ananias son of Nebedeus.

Anyhow, Felix, one of the richest and most powerful man in the province, will keep Paul jailed for 2 years, hoping for a "bribe". As if none of the murderous Jewish leaders could have bribed him if the detention was simply about money. Strangely no angry Jew even as much as pleaded that he be handled to them, until Felix's replacement with Festus. Festus eventually dismissed their request but nevertheless wants to "please" them by suggesting a trial in Jerusalem Acts25. Compare this to the apostles' delivrance from jail through divine intervention Acts5:17-20 and yet no miraculous appearance to save Paul to whom Jesus himself appeared.

But persecuted Paul had his own type of luck. The charges against him were relegated to mere religious matters Acts23:29,25:19,25:26-27 and consequently dismissed by both Festus and the Jewish king Herod Agrippa who just so happenned to be in town Acts26:32. All this happened before even the hearing of his case in Jerusalem. Follows a bizarre twist, with persecuted Paul given another escort, this time to Rome and to present his case to none other than Caesar himself. This wasnt event needed, persecuted Paul himself made the request despite all local authorities clearing him from any charges. There was never such an instance in the Roman judicial system of overruling local authorities' decisions simply by "appeal to Caesar" Acts26:32.

And we're not even talking of an unfavorable ruling but one that had just aqcuited him! The high priest Jonathan was put to death by the procurator Felix just a few years earlier, surely he could have made the same appeal as Paul did? Whoever was writing the plot of Acts surely did a lousy job until now at defending Paul's case of unjust persecution. At approximately the same time of Paul's appeal, another appeal was made to the Caesar Nero, by the Jewish High Priest Ismael. Nero agreed influenced by his own Jewish wife. However, Ismael was held imprisonned in Rome. The author of Acts had a clear political and theological motive in mind, supposedly endorsed by Jesus Acts23:11 through inspiration: to move his story on towards a necessary climax in Rome.

Upon his arrival to Rome, he was allowed to live in a house, summon Jews and other visitors to preach to them freely, protected by a soldier Acts28:16-31.

The so-called "prison letters" – Philippians, Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians are traditionally ascribed to Paul in his Roman captivity despite recent Biblical scholarship opinion to the contrary. Nothing evokes imprisonnement in these writings except for the vague and isolated references "prisoner in Jesus Christ" and "bonds" to endorse that claim. Pauline vocabulary is full of such words evoking servitude, suffering and "imprisonment", all of which to convey the idea of his metaphorical servitude to Jesus. "Rome" is nowhere mentioned in any of the prison letters. The whole claim rests on the single reference to "Caesar's household" of Phil4:22, and the use of "palace" in Phil1:13"My 
bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places".

It is said he was finally acquitted of the charges against him and therefore started travelling around Europe and the Mediterranean coasts to spread his teachings to the gentiles.
It is hard therefore to imagine how he would be arrested again by the same Nero then executed, as tradition alledges. The Church needed the fabrication of that itinary in order to render authentic 1 and 2 Timothy, as well as Titus since in the latter, Paul anticipates his soon reunion with other Christians in Greece Titus3:12,13.