1.d. Secret-Agent Men!?
Here is a good place to reiterate a point I raised in the Opening Statement. I quote myself: "And to all of these points, let's not forget that Ananias also claims to have encountered the Lord Jesus in a vision. And to add another layer of intrigue, why would Paul's violent mercenary companions take their leader to the house of a disciple of Jesus and leave him there? Weren't they out to destroy such people? Why leave an asset like Paul in the care of their sworn enemy? Were they also converted? We don't know! Are they Secret-Agent Men!?" This might be the case.
I would like to add that not only do Paul's personal connections and relations raise questions about Paul's mission and potential motive, but the actions of those "with him" on the Road to Damascus prove suspicious. Paul was blinded by something that others may or may not have seen and heard, depending on which version of the story you take (Acts 9, 22, 26). These people lead Paul by the hand to Damascus, which we can speculate was about a half-day's journey away still. Then they left him there. We aren't told in the text exactly what happens. The next scene in Paul's tale is that a "disciple of Jesus" named Ananias greets him and baptizes him. Next, they're in fellowship with those disciples at Damascus. So we ask the following: Why would Paul's violent companions leave Paul in that particular state "alone"? Were they always in his company? If so, why would they stay with him until they meet Ananias and then leave him in the care of their sworn enemy? Nothing of the scenario makes any sense unless the theory of Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon in their book Operation Messiah: St. Paul, Roman Intelligence, and the Birth of Christianity is true, which is that Paul may have been a Roman/ Herodian agent sent to gather intelligence and thwart the growth of the radical anti-imperial Messianic movement. Ananias may be an informant. I believe the data presented here suggests their theory is correct.