Which Paulines were Pauline and when?

[Difflugia]

Question for debate: Which Pauline epistles were actually written by Paul and in what order?

Because I want to hear more about this:

(1) I believe Romans is his first work/Thesis, which isn't the mainstream view. It just so happens that on evidence, I'm right.

[TRANSPONDER]

I did read and grasp the meaning of the epistles and I think my hypothesis fits the material, even if alternative hypotheses could be made.

It's easy to dream-up historical hypotheses. The question historians face is which hypothesis best explains the available data.

Your hypothesis seems highly unlikely.

First, I think the internal evidence points strongly against it.

In his letter to the Romans, for example, Paul tells us he's been wanting to visit them for some time to conduct in Rome the kind of ministry he's undertaken elsewhere (Romans 1:13).

In fact, after "many years" he's now done with "these regions" (likely the Aegean if not the whole eastern Mediterranean) and now wants to visit Rome on his way to Spain (Romans 15:22-26).

That all makes sense if Paul visited and wrote his letters to the churches around the Aegean, including in Thessalonica, Corinth, Colossae and Galatia, before writing to the Romans -- especially since some of those letters include references to Paul having recently visited those Greek churches.

Your hypothesis, on the other hand, would have Paul writing Romans first before these other letters, apparently early in his missionary career, and so does not make good sense of that data.

Second, your hypothesis can't really be squared with the traditions of Paul's journeys recounted in Acts.

And, finally, it has zero scholarly support.

Your'e right. It does say that Paul wants to visit the Romans. I'd like to have another look at this idea that it was after he'd done the majority of his ministry. Which would mean that he be recapping his arguments at length. And you are correct that this isn't the scholarly view. For what that's worth. I guess I have little scholarly support for my take on the gospels, and yet I'm sure it's right. Demonstrably so.

The thing that bothers me about Romans is that he not only seems to be working out his theory in Romans, but his later letters seem to build on those ideas and even change them. That's why I got the idea that Romans was his initial Thesis. I could be wrong, and it doesn't make a lot of difference if Romans is one of his later letters. I just have some questions about it based on the nature of the letter.

I don't credit a word of Acts as confirming anything about Paul. I am convinced that it was a biographical invention by Luke (whoever he really was) based on Paul's letters, pretty freely interpreted. Like the chat that Paul had with James in Jerusalem turned into a full scale hearing with a large audience. The end of Romans does say that Paul had been collecting from the saints which would put that at 45 AD. The date of the Judean famine which is when (I was given a clue) Paul went around his churches, rattling the tin. If the conversion was AD 36/7 (date of the Nabatean war) he'd had 8 years of conversion work limited to Greece pretty much. Around 6 years until the council of Jerusalem (scholar's date) and and near 9 years before he vanishes, Luke supposing that he finally does go to Rome, though there is no real evidence of this, and end with Paul lecturing everyone there. I don't believe a word of it any more than I believe that absurd scene of Paul lecturing the Athenian philosophers on the Areopagus.

But I agree it's all debatable and I'm wide open to being proved wrong...ah I need to quote your post

[The Nice Centurion]

Question for debate: Which Pauline epistles were actually written by Paul and in what order?

Because I want to hear more about this:

(1) I believe Romans is his first work/Thesis, which isn't the mainstream view. It just so happens that on evidence, I'm right.

"I don't believe in God, the Bible, or Jesus..however, lets debate which one of Paul's alleged epistles were actually written by Paul, and in what order".

Continues to blow my mind.

And the OP is in a context that assumes the Historicity of Paul as granted, even though the granted Historicity of Paul takes steps to following the granted Historicity of Jesus Down the toilet . . .

[TRANSPONDER]

One can go one of three ways..Paul is fictional. Some say that Marcion wrote Paul. I doubt it myself, because Marcion wanted nothing to do with the OT, but Paul quotes it as a basis and support all the time

Paul was a real person and we can trust what he says.

Paul was a real person but we can't trust him any further than we can kick him. I go with this one and I already know that his argument is flawed as he misrepresents the OT (though he may be using it as illustration rather than support) and his argument is flawed. Which is that the Righteous can be so by the faith that Abraham had before the law was given Which is faith in God. But he changes it to faith in Jesus. Faith in God (like Abraham) isn't enough, but he doesn't say why. I would suppose that somehow Gentiles had been excluded from God -belief (perhaps because the law had been given) and something had to be done to get past that. So the whole Jesus -sacrifice thesis was created.