Because I want to hear more about this:
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 10:10 am(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.
Moderator: Moderators
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 10:10 am(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.
What does that have to do with my finding it interesting? I find lots of other mythological frameworks interesting, too. I don't think any of them are magic, either.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:43 pmDo you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of the Living God?
Answer: No.
That is what I mean.
And there's some evidence that he didn't write all of what was attributed to him, hence the debate topic.
You literally expressed disbelief that I'd want to debate the literary history of a fun book because I don't "believe in it." Your rhetorical question isn't sensical, let alone a sufficient response.
I think you missed a few lectures. That explains a lot.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:43 pmdead matter came to life and began to think, talk, and also fly (flying creatures).
What he did or didn't write shouldn't matter to an unbeliever. That is just the way I feel.
Yeah but it seems as if the interest is on the high end of the spectrum for unbelievers. I find it quite disturbing, actually.
Oh, I missed a few lectures because I gave a simplified version of naturalism, but you had a front row seat for the lecture on the simplified version of Christianity that you provided?
You seem to have missed quite a lot, one way or the other. Ok, you approve finding many things interesting as well as the religion debate. The way you feel about what matters or doesn't to an unbeliever is neither here nor there, and as irrelevant as the invitation to sue you. Your opinion on this simply doesn't matter. Nor does your being disturbed by anything we do or think. Do you seriously think that your saying you are upset by unbelievers taking an interest in debunking a claim we don't actually think is true (which is reason enough to debunk it) is going to make us think "Ooohhh Wow..there mist be something wrong with our mindset"?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 12:55 pm
What he did or didn't write shouldn't matter to an unbeliever. That is just the way I feel.
Sue me.
Yeah but it seems as if the interest is on the high end of the spectrum for unbelievers. I find it quite disturbing, actually.
Oh, I missed a few lectures because I gave a simplified version of naturalism, but you had a front row seat for the lecture on the simplified version of Christianity that you provided?
Gotcha.
It matters to me.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:26 pm You seem to have missed quite a lot, one way or the other. Ok, you approve finding many things interesting as well as the religion debate. The way you feel about what matters or doesn't to an unbeliever is neither here nor there, and as irrelevant as the invitation to sue you. Your opinion on this simply doesn't matter.
No, I didn't mean it that way. I was simply sharing my thoughts on the matter. Nothing more, nothing less.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:26 pm Nor does your being disturbed by anything we do or think. Do you seriously think that your saying you are upset by unbelievers taking an interest in debunking a claim we don't actually think is true (which is reason enough to debunk it) is going to make us think "Ooohhh Wow..there mist be something wrong with our mindset"?
There is a debate going on here?TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:26 pm I won't comment on 'simplified lectures' but rather, note that the debate is still ongoing as to whom it is that is fit to be giving lectures at all, simple or complex.
A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinions of sheep.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:26 pm Sorry, no Gotchas for you, much as you would like to think that you pulled one. However I cannot resist observing that your exhibition crowing over your own cleverness is hardly doing you any good.
In fact I have even wondered for several posts whether you are an atheist posing as a very poor Christian apologist simply discredit them.
Gotchaself.
I wouldn't presume to call myself a lion, nor even the head of a dog, but my only purpose here is concern for the sheep.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:46 pmTRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:26 pm You seem to have missed quite a lot, one way or the other. Ok, you approve finding many things interesting as well as the religion debate. The way you feel about what matters or doesn't to an unbeliever is neither here nor there, and as irrelevant as the invitation to sue you. Your opinion on this simply doesn't matter.I don't care.It matters to me.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:26 pm Nor does your being disturbed by anything we do or think. Do you seriously think that your saying you are upset by unbelievers taking an interest in debunking a claim we don't actually think is true (which is reason enough to debunk it) is going to make us think "Ooohhh Wow..there mist be something wrong with our mindset"?I still don't care.No, I didn't mean it that way. I was simply sharing my thoughts on the matter. Nothing more, nothing less.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:26 pm I won't comment on 'simplified lectures' but rather, note that the debate is still ongoing as to whom it is that is fit to be giving lectures at all, simple or complex.Indeed, and you are scoring us points whether you think you are participating or not.There is a debate going on here?
A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinions of sheep.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:26 pm Sorry, no Gotchas for you, much as you would like to think that you pulled one. However I cannot resist observing that your exhibition crowing over your own cleverness is hardly doing you any good.
In fact I have even wondered for several posts whether you are an atheist posing as a very poor Christian apologist simply discredit them.
Gotchaself.
Certainly not from your side. Putting aside the wisecracks and snide remarks, you contribute nothing of significance to these debates. You believe, that's it, and it's unclear why anyone else should care.
On this as on many other matters, I follow the scholarly consensus: 1 Thessalonians (c. 50), 1 Corinthians (c. 53), Galatians (c. 54), 2 Corinthians (c. 55), Romans (c. 57), Philemon (c. 61) and Philippians (c. 62) are clearly written by Paul himself. Hebrews and the Pastorals are not.
The Pauline epistles are arranged by approximate size -- from longest to shortest -- within the New Testament, a common practice for ancient manuscripts. That this would coincidentally also be the chronological order in which they were written is very unlikely.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 6:40 am
I don't see any problem with the present sequence reflecting the chronological order
A very good point and something I had noticed. But I am more impressed by the evolution of the content. It progresses. Romans is his whole Thesis, argued out. Corinthians is his dealing with the fall -out and plugging the holes in his thesis. Later on self - justification as any kind of apostle. And later on particular points being made. That would account for a decrease in length without undermining the idea that they may be in chronological order, aside from the subject matter fitting that theory. I haven't made a detailed redaction as I did with the gospels, but 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.historia wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:30 amOn this as on many other matters, I follow the scholarly consensus: 1 Thessalonians (c. 50), 1 Corinthians (c. 53), Galatians (c. 54), 2 Corinthians (c. 55), Romans (c. 57), Philemon (c. 61) and Philippians (c. 62) are clearly written by Paul himself. Hebrews and the Pastorals are not.
There is a lack of a consensus on the remaining letters, so I suppose here we might put in our personal opinions. I'm inclined to see 2 Thessalonians (c. 51) as genuine and Ephesians and Colossians as pseudographical.
The Pauline epistles are arranged by approximate size -- from longest to shortest -- within the New Testament, a common practice for ancient manuscripts. That this would coincidentally also be the chronological order in which they were written is very unlikely.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 6:40 am
I don't see any problem with the present sequence reflecting the chronological order
It's easy to dream-up historical hypotheses. The question historians face is which hypothesis best explains the available data.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:51 am
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.