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]

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 have seen 'Romans' placed (on the critics working out the travels of Paul) quite late, mainly seen as a sort of introductory letter for Paul's planned trip to Rome. But to me, clearly, Paul is writing his thesis. This is him working out and arguing his theory that the Mosaic law cannot save, and only getting back to Abrahamic righteousness through believing in Jesus can save. Thus he argues for what he wants - a Judaism with the Jewish rites removed so it will appeal to Gentiles. It is his foundational work. And in the subsequent letters he has to revise this, warning his converts that becoming free of Sin doesn't mean they can sin with impunity. He later on (Galatians) gets into justifying his own authority as an apostle and i recall that he even moves onto suggesting that Jesusfaith frees even Jews from the law, whereas in Romans he said that they were obliged to observe it. Indeed it is part of his theory that Gentiles cannot become circumcised or they are obliged to follow the whole Law. But if Jews themselves can be freed from it by Jesusfaith (I suspect that the problem that worried him was not being very observant himself) then circumcision doesn't oblige them to anything.

I don't see any problem with the present sequence reflecting the chronological order; it seems to fit with the development of his argument. Perhaps after Philomen is when the authorship becomes dubious. II Peter is generally accepted to be spurious.

Over to you and your expertise, my friend. I just think up the ideas, it's up to the experts to make them work.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

[brunumb]

"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.

It's not really complicated. Held beliefs shouldn't prevent one from discussing such issues. Although, there are some who may not like the prospect of uncomfortable truths surfacing through the discussion. Too bad for them.

[Difflugia]

"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.

What do you mean, I don't believe in the Bible? There are all kinds of evidence that it really exists and has a history. There's even some evidence that someone named Paul wrote parts of it.

Your objection is like claiming that Hobbits aren't real, so nobody should enjoy talking about The Lord of the Rings.

What continues to blow my mind is the apparent lack of imagination in someone that otherwise literally believes that an executed criminal came back to life and flew away.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Yep however, take heart my friend. You do not blow My mind.

"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.

It's not really complicated. Held beliefs shouldn't prevent one from discussing such issues. Although, there are some who may not like the prospect of uncomfortable truths surfacing through the discussion. Too bad for them.

It's the old rhetoric 'if you don;t believe, why do you talk about it?' Because the effect of the religion on our society is very real. And the puzzles and questions about the Jesus story is one of the most fascinating. And I think I've cracked it. I think I know the way of solving it; a method that is demonstrable on evidence and makes predictions that pan out. I could be wrong. But if I'm right it's the biggest puzzle solved since Darwin. And of course the part Paul played in that is all part of it.

[TRANSPONDER]

"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.

What do you mean, I don't believe in the Bible? There are all kinds of evidence that it really exists and has a history. There's even some evidence that someone named Paul wrote parts of it.

Your objection is like claiming that Hobbits aren't real, so nobody should enjoy talking about The Lord of the Rings.

What continues to blow my mind is the apparent lack of imagination in someone that otherwise literally believes that an executed criminal came back to life and flew away.

The ongoing debate about sci Fi/Fantasy and adhering to and respecting Canon is also a fascinating social and even political struggle. There have been many interesting Problems in my time; The mutiny on the Bounty (whose fault was it, really?) the battle of Waterloo (did Wellington win it or did Napoleon lose it?) Gods from outer space (The Daaniken nonsense was almost as big a threat and nuisance as creationism, and I even see them combined, as in the 'Atlantean argument' not too long ago right here, that Mayan Temples copy ancient near eastern models. And the biggest and best is the 'Real Jesus' puzzle. Which also covers the shroud, the da Vinci code, Arkeology and evolution -denial. As Gods from outer space incorporates ancient technology, dinosaurs in the Bible and Crop circles as well as the whole UFO problem, which actually gave me a clue to theist-think/cultThink, as the dismissive and science -denial apologetics methods were virtually identical.

P.s on a former board a regular poster's catch -phrase was 'Dude died, woke up and flew away'. He was one of those other curious puzzles: the atheist -hating unbeliever. There was one 'Agnostic' who espoused Catholicism, not because he believed it, but for political reasons; and he opposed atheists because he saw them as 'Liberals' (Lefties). So much so that he used video debates to try to stump me and I had to point out that he didn't himself believe the Christians angle they were debating. But all that mattered was that atheists got beaten.

Fascinating, truly fascinating. Understanding the Faithbased mindset of the Religious apologist is as fascinating as the things they argue about.

[We_Are_VENOM]

It's not really complicated. Held beliefs shouldn't prevent one from discussing such issues.

Preventing? Not at all. But still.

Although, there are some who may not like the prospect of uncomfortable truths surfacing through the discussion. Too bad for them.

I'm not one of them, but I agree; too bad for them.

It's the old rhetoric 'if you don;t believe, why do you talk about it?' Because the effect of the religion on our society is very real.

About as real as the effect of the lack of religion on our society.

And the puzzles and questions about the Jesus story is one of the most fascinating.

I agree, the story of Jesus is fascinating. Fascinatingly true.

And I think I've cracked it. I think I know the way of solving it; a method that is demonstrable on evidence and makes predictions that pan out. I could be wrong. But if I'm right it's the biggest puzzle solved since Darwin. And of course the part Paul played in that is all part of it.

Your over-confidence is alarming.

[We_Are_VENOM]

What do you mean, I don't believe in the Bible? There are all kinds of evidence that it really exists and has a history.

Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of the Living God?

Answer: No.

That is what I mean.

There's even some evidence that someone named Paul wrote parts of it.

And?

Your objection is like claiming that Hobbits aren't real, so nobody should enjoy talking about The Lord of the Rings.

Oh. Think so?

What continues to blow my mind is the apparent lack of imagination in someone that otherwise literally believes that an executed criminal came back to life and flew away.

Executed criminal came back to life and flew away >>>> dead matter came to life and began to think, talk, and also fly (flying creatures).

[TRANSPONDER]

It's not really complicated. Held beliefs shouldn't prevent one from discussing such issues.

Preventing? Not at all. But still.

Although, there are some who may not like the prospect of uncomfortable truths surfacing through the discussion. Too bad for them.

I'm not one of them, but I agree; too bad for them.

quite. They must handle it as they see fit.

It's the old rhetoric 'if you don;t believe, why do you talk about it?' Because the effect of the religion on our society is very real.

About as real as the effect of the lack of religion on our society.

Of course, that too.

And the puzzles and questions about the Jesus story is one of the most fascinating.

I agree, the story of Jesus is fascinating. Fascinatingly true.

each to their own. For me is is the demonstrable untruth that is particularly fascinating.

And I think I've cracked it. I think I know the way of solving it; a method that is demonstrable on evidence and makes predictions that pan out. I could be wrong. But if I'm right it's the biggest puzzle solved since Darwin. And of course the part Paul played in that is all part of it.

Your over-confidence is alarming.

Your over- confidence in it being 'fascinatingly true' is, however, perfectly charming.