 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Craig2uguys"] | porphyry wrote: | | All patristic evidence on James agrees that James was a Jewish High Priest, and anybody who knows both Pauline doctine and the duties of the High Priest, realizes that Temple Judaism is of the strongest slaps in the face of Paul's beliefs. |
| Quote: | | Not a single early historian wrote that James the Just was a Jewish High Priest! |
Then you obviously do not appreciate the full ramifications of the description of James Eusebius preserved from Hegesippus.
| Quote: | History of the Church 2:23:4-7
James, the brother of the Lord
succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.
He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.
He was holy from his mother's womb;
and he drank no wine nor strong drink,
nor did he eat flesh.
No razor came upon his head;
he did not anoint himself with oil,
and he did not use the bath.
He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments.
And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias,which signifies in Greek, `Bulwark of the people' and `Justice', in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him..." |
Eusebius said James ALONE was permitted to enter the Holy Place, because he wore not wool, but linen.
First, nobody was allowed to enter the holy place alone, except the high priest.
Second, Eusebius' explanation is because James wore linen, not wool, and linen garments were required to be worn by the high priest according to Exodus.
ALL of Eusebius' description is consistent with the Jewish High Priesthood.
But you don't care, your single contribution to the dialogue is little more than "but the bible says different, and I agree with gawd's wurrrrd!!!!!!!!"
But it's better to be a scholar in hell than a Jesus freak in heaven. There's probably more beer in hell.
| Quote: | | Careless reading may cause a man to interpret them to be writing such a thing, but of course it could not have been. |
My position is that the Christian church did an imperfect job of whitewashing it's own history to make the earliest apostles look more in agreement than they actually were. If james was so in agreement with Paul, they would hardly have believed that these historical nuggest on James were historically reliable, and would never have bothered mentioning them. As such, their choice to give this side of James shows that very earliest Christianity was a far cry from the Pauline gospel that eventually took it over.
Don't be stupid and think all groups that slipped into obscurity must have been heretical. Dogma can never overrule sound historical judgement based on good criteria. If you believe you can dismiss anything and everything simply when it doesn't square up with your interpretation of the bible, then please admit it so I can stop wasting time on somebody who honestly doesn't care if good historiography leads to unsettling conclusions.
| Quote: | | Just the thought that the first century Jews who persuaded the Roman government to crucify Jesus could possibly select his brother, who was the Bishop of the Church and of the Christian Faith, not to mention his being of the tribe of Judah rather than Levi, to be their high priest is substantially less than solid evidence of cognitive ability. |
But that's exactly how Eusebius describes James, as a high priest!
If it's so obvious this cannot be true, that Eusebius would have thought it obvious too.
Why then did Eusebius choose to include this report about James? Do you think he'd have included this information if he had found any reason to distrust it?
| Quote: | | But even if all the early historians did indeed believe such a thing and they all based their belief on the same piece of information, we do not have many witness, but only one—a witness who is obviously incorrect. |
The failure of a historical fact from Eusebius to square up with something in the bible simply gives us skeptics a choice to make. It appears your dogma overrules your historiographical common sense, so it won't be beneficial for you and I to continue this discussion. I can already foresee having to tell you a million times that the bible doesn't automatically trump all ancient historical sources that disagree with it. I'm willing to apply tests of historicity to see which source is more probably correct....all you wish to do is worship the bible and blindly assume it's always in the right whenever you find a source that disagrees with it. I wish you well.
| Quote: | | As for the opinions of these historians regarding the theology of James, what was their source? Was it not the Epistle of James? |
No, because there is nothing about James being a high priest in the Epistle of James, telling me that it was either authored by a different James, or by an anonymous author attributing it falsely to James.
Don't be too quick to assume one particular James must have written that epistle of the same name, there were three James's in the New Testament,
| Quote: | | And did they not misunderstand it as badly as many conservative and liberal scholars do today? |
YOu talk as if what constitutes a "misunderstanding" of the epistle of James, would be something most people would agree about, surely you are smarter than this?
While James taught that the true saving faith naturally produces good works (James 2), Paul taught that faith will justify a person even if it doesn't produce good works! Romans 4:5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
james
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 567
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess this discussin could turn to proving that all of Eusebuis' and Hegessipus' writings are true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6342
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | While James taught that the true saving faith naturally produces good works (James 2), Paul taught that faith will justify a person even if it doesn't produce good works! Romans 4:5 |
Yes!
2Ki 5:18 In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, [that] when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.
Faith IS the foundation..and what we build on that is either taken away or remains.
So I hear them both saying the same thing but coming from two ends of the candle..if you know what I mean.
If good works then they remain and bear fruit and are our rewards.
If bad works then they are burned up they don't remain and that is the punishment.
We lose what we worked for. Or we keep and increase what we worked for..depending upon the works and the faith which upholds them...
hard sometimes to see the foundation with all the stuff piled up on top of it.. 
hugs
lone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | | Quote: | | While James taught that the true saving faith naturally produces good works (James 2), Paul taught that faith will justify a person even if it doesn't produce good works! Romans 4:5 |
Yes! |
Paul never taught any such doctrine. Indeed, such a doctrine contradicts all of Judeo-Christian theology up to the 16the century. Faith, if it is really faith, ALWAYS produces good works and Paul NEVER taught anything to the contrary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | lone-traveler wrote: | | Quote: | | While James taught that the true saving faith naturally produces good works (James 2), Paul taught that faith will justify a person even if it doesn't produce good works! Romans 4:5 |
Yes! |
Paul never taught any such doctrine. Indeed, such a doctrine contradicts all of Judeo-Christian theology up to the 16the century. Faith, if it is really faith, ALWAYS produces good works and Paul NEVER taught anything to the contrary. |
the fact that some theological statement sounds contrary to a particular belief system, doesn't mean the staement is incorrectly interpreted.
I heard prosperity preachers on tv all the time saying God wants everybody to be rich. This sounds totally contrary to the bible. But that doesn't mean I should therefore try to interpret the prosperity doctrine with the bible, just to get these tv preachers off the hook!
As such, you should not be bothered whether something Paul said sounds contrary to Judeo-Christian theology. the hard truth just might be that Paul was inconsistent with himself.
Furthermore, you talk as if there is only one single sort of theology that can be called "judeo-Christian", when in fact jewish theology contradicts Christian theology, and Christian theology is itself rife with conflicts that bible scholars have argued for centuries.
Anyway, Paul certainly did teach that a person's faith will justify them, even if they have no works:
| Quote: | | "but to the one who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Romans 4:5) |
James would never say that the one who doesn't work, can still be justified by faith, but Paul sure did! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| porphyry wrote: |
| Quote: | | "but to the one who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Romans 4:5) |
James would never say that the one who doesn't work, can still be justified by faith, but Paul sure did! |
As I have repeatedly posted in this thread, Paul NEVER said one thing in Romans chapters 1-8 about the type of works that James wrote of—good works which have nothing to do with the Law but everything to do with the teachings of Christ. Every time, without exception, when Paul wrote of works in Romans 1-8 he was writing of works of the Law. We know that for an absolute certainty because introducing the concept of good works into his argument, an argument that spans nearly eight full chapters, that no one can be justified by keeping the Law, would be like introducing the rules of baseball into a booklet on glassblowing.
James, on the other hand, in his epistle, NEVER instructs his readers to obey the Law in order to be justified but simply informs them that faith that does not result in good works is dead, that is, it is not faith at all but mere presumption. Presumption cannot justify anyone and both Paul and James clearly knew that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| porphyry wrote: | | Craig2uguys wrote: | | lone-traveler wrote: | | Quote: | | While James taught that the true saving faith naturally produces good works (James 2), Paul taught that faith will justify a person even if it doesn't produce good works! Romans 4:5 |
|
Yes! |
Paul never taught any such doctrine. Indeed, such a doctrine contradicts all of Judeo-Christian theology up to the 16the century. Faith, if it is really faith, ALWAYS produces good works and Paul NEVER taught anything to the contrary. |
| porphyry wrote: | | the fact that some theological statement sounds contrary to a particular belief system, doesn't mean the staement is incorrectly interpreted. |
No, of course not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| porphyry wrote: | | I heard prosperity preachers on tv all the time saying God wants everybody to be rich. This sounds totally contrary to the bible. But that doesn't mean I should therefore try to interpret the prosperity doctrine with the bible, just to get these tv preachers off the hook! |
Prosperity preachers preach a doctrine that is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the New Testament!
| porphyry wrote: | As such, you should not be bothered whether something Paul said sounds contrary to Judeo-Christian theology. the hard truth just might be that Paul was inconsistent with himself.
Furthermore, you talk as if there is only one single sort of theology that can be called "judeo-Christian", when in fact jewish theology contradicts Christian theology, and Christian theology is itself rife with conflicts that bible scholars have argued for centuries. |
Paul, before his conversion to Christianity, was a hardcore Pharissee—a Pharisee through and though. After his conversion to Christianity he became a Jew of the sect known at that time as Christians.
I have spent many thousands of hours with Paul and his writings and my personal library includes more than 235 commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans representing scores of conflicting schools of theology, not to mention each of Paul’s other epistles and numerous other volumes on Paul’s theology, and not to mention a multitude of volumes on Old Testament theology, New Testament theology and Judeo-Christian theology, and not to mention scores of volumes of Hebrew and Greek lexicons, grammars and other linguistic studies. Paul NEVER, ABSOLUTELY never, wrote anything that even remotely contradicted Judeo-Christian theology. Anyone who thinks that he did is either unfamiliar with Judeo-Christian theology of the first century A.D. or they do not understand Paul. Judeo-Christian theology is not 100% homologous, but the concept that faith apart from the resulting works is true faith is contrary to the teachings of Judeo-Christian until the 16th century. Yes, there were some new converts to the Christian faith who were confused and who needed instruction, and Paul and James wrote to clear up the confusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6342
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sometimes I get conflicted between the two. It seems as if Paul says we can consider ourselves "lawless", that is, we don't require a law to live by..
which I disagree with, there has to be order, and there has to be some kind of carnal based authority..because we are not perfect yet and able to walk without any guidence. To think so would be in my opinion most vain.
But James on the other hand seems to put too much weight on the law of carnal ordinances..and if we make a mistake here, then we are guilty in all. But that's not what it says in the law itself. The law says if we are guilty of something then for that something we are to be punished for..it doesn't lay the entire book on your head, just what you did wrong.
If a man steals is he also guilty of murder or adultery ?
carnally speaking no. He is guilty of stealing and should be punished for stealing..but not be punished for every sin in the law.
But spiritually speaking..if the whole law is covered under loving your neighbour, then anything we do against another is as if the whole burden of the law is placed on us and we are guilty of every jot and tittle of it.
for example:
Lev 4:27 ¶ And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth [somewhat against] any of the commandments of the LORD [concerning things] which ought not to be done, and be guilty;
Lev 4:28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
and yet James says:
Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
and Paul says:
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
So they're both saying the same thing in a way but coming in with two different attitudes..
James..fear..if you keep the law and goof up, your guilty as charged..
Paul..gentle..don't worry about the law you are justified by faith alone..
they working together..and some hear the gentle voice and some hear the fearful voice..same message..different tone..
I believe the law is good, but there are a lot of tares in it that need to be weeded out. And that's why the ordinances and the animal sacrifices were taken away.
But the basic good is in there still. Just need to uncover the dross from the silver or remove the scum off the face of it.
I believe if we walk without breaking the law, the law can't condemn us. And the reason for the law is for those who are faithless and walk by no law but their own making. So the law is good for those who do bad because it gives them rules to walk in. The law is also good for us who are walking in faith according to the spirit of good and are no longer condemned by it if we don't break it. It's a reminder of the life we left behind.
like a memorial of the bondage of walking under it and have been freed by no longer disagreeing with it but walking hand in hand and in agreement with the good of it.
sorry..ramblin.. 
lone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: |
But James on the other hand seems to put too much weight on the law of carnal ordinances..and if we make a mistake here, then we are guilty in all. But that's not what it says in the law itself. The law says if we are guilty of something then for that something we are to be punished for..it doesn't lay the entire book on your head, just what you did wrong.
If a man steals is he also guilty of murder or adultery ?
carnally speaking no. He is guilty of stealing and should be punished for stealing..but not be punished for every sin in the law. |
Excellent point. Paulists of today act as if telling a little white lie makes you guilty of rape, because a biblical author once said you are guilty of breaking all the laws when you break even one of them.
You made a forceful point in noting that the Law itself prescribes punishment for single offenses, and doesn't just consider them murderers because they stole food.
I think you brought up another valid criticism of the NT authors. Their view of the Law is often at odds with the Law itself....no wonder today's apologists are insisting that some OT authors didn't even know what their own writings meant, and everybody had to wait for the NT authors to get the..."real"...meaning. That's laughable.
| Quote: | | But spiritually speaking..if the whole law is covered under loving your neighbour, then anything we do against another is as if the whole burden of the law is placed on us and we are guilty of every jot and tittle of it. |
I would disagree that the whole law is covered by "love your neighbor as yourself". God made laws commanding the absolute annihilation of various groups and towns. A man of Moses hacking a baby to death among the Amalakites is hardly "loving your neighbor as yourself".
| Quote: | for example:
Lev 4:27 ¶ And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth [somewhat against] any of the commandments of the LORD [concerning things] which ought not to be done, and be guilty;
Lev 4:28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
and yet James says:
Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
and Paul says:
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
So they're both saying the same thing in a way but coming in with two different attitudes..
James..fear..if you keep the law and goof up, your guilty as charged..
Paul..gentle..don't worry about the law you are justified by faith alone..
they working together..and some hear the gentle voice and some hear the fearful voice..same message..different tone.. |
What makes you think it's only the "tone" that is different? You make a good case that Paul and James contradict each other, not that they simply view the matter from different angles.
| Quote: | | I believe the law is good, but there are a lot of tares in it that need to be weeded out. And that's why the ordinances and the animal sacrifices were taken away. |
But the Law itself says God commanded the animal sacrifice rituals. Did God sow tares into his own holy Law? Wouldn't that put the devil out of work? We have to have the devil running around to blame everytime a Christian experiences unfairness from the world, don't we?
| Quote: | | But the basic good is in there still. Just need to uncover the dross from the silver or remove the scum off the face of it. |
So God sowed scummy tares into his own Law?
| Quote: | | I believe if we walk without breaking the law, the law can't condemn us. And the reason for the law is for those who are faithless and walk by no law but their own making. So the law is good for those who do bad because it gives them rules to walk in. The law is also good for us who are walking in faith according to the spirit of good and are no longer condemned by it if we don't break it. |
There is no meaningful distinction. The law condems anybody who breaks it, whether they walk by faith or not. Walking by faith doesn't make you any different when you obey the law or when you disobey it.
| Quote: | It's a reminder of the life we left behind.
like a memorial of the bondage of walking under it and have been freed by no longer disagreeing with it but walking hand in hand and in agreement with the good of it. |
No matter how you slice it, Christianity simply does not square with Mosaic Law. saying it was "fulfilled in Christ" merely contradicts Leviticus 16, which says the human operation of the animal blood atonement in a Temple was to go on forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: | | porphyry wrote: |
| Quote: | | "but to the one who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Romans 4:5) |
James would never say that the one who doesn't work, can still be justified by faith, but Paul sure did! |
[b] [color=blue]As I have repeatedly posted in this thread, Paul NEVER said one thing in Romans chapters 1-8 about the type of works that James wrote of—good works which have nothing to do with the Law but everything to do with the teachings of Christ. Every time, without exception, when Paul wrote of works in Romans 1-8 he was writing of works of the Law. |
I don't care how many times you repeat what you believe. The immediate context of Romans 4:5 includes verse 4 at a minimum, which is speaking of work one may recieve wages for, which might be anything, and therefore, is NOT speaking of circumcision. You only insist the "work" of verse 5 must mean circumcision because you are more worried to protect biblical inerrancy, than you are to interpret verse 4 correctly.
| Quote: | | We know that for an absolute certainty because introducing the concept of good works into his argument, an argument that spans nearly eight full chapters, that no one can be justified by keeping the Law, would be like introducing the rules of baseball into a booklet on glassblowing. |
I'm quite sure Paul will say "circumcision" when he is talking about it, if he isn't crazy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: |
Paul never taught any such doctrine. Indeed, such a doctrine contradicts all of Judeo-Christian theology up to the 16the century. Faith, if it is really faith, ALWAYS produces good works and Paul NEVER taught anything to the contrary. |
It's always nice to see a Christian confusing apologetics with dogmatics. If you think you've refuted me by dogmatically declaring something, I feel sorry for you.
| porphyry wrote: | | the fact that some theological statement sounds contrary to a particular belief system, doesn't mean the staement is incorrectly interpreted. |
No, of course not.[/quote]
You will never reconcile Paul's view of the Law, with Moses' own view. Paul says the Law is done away in Christ, yet Moses said the human operation of Lawful animal sacrifices would endure permanently, See Leviticus 16. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6342
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi porphyry
| Quote: | | But the Law itself says God commanded the animal sacrifice rituals. Did God sow tares into his own holy Law? Wouldn't that put the devil out of work? We have to have the devil running around to blame everytime a Christian experiences unfairness from the world, don't we? |
hmm..I think the blame comes back on our own heads porphyry..
see:
Ezekiel chapter 23:
Eze 20:18 ¶ But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols:
Eze 20:19 I [am] the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them;
Eze 20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I [am] the LORD your God.
Eze 20:21 Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them, which [if] a man do, he shall even live in them; they polluted my sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the wilderness.
Eze 20:22 Nevertheless I withdrew mine hand, and wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted in the sight of the heathen, in whose sight I brought them forth.
Eze 20:23 I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries;
Eze 20:24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols.
HERE:
Eze 20:25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
Eze 20:26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through [the fire] all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I [am] the LORD.
Eze 20:27 ¶ Therefore, son of man, speak unto the house of Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Yet in this your fathers have blasphemed me, in that they have committed a trespass against me.
Eze 20:28 [For] when I had brought them into the land, [for] the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to them, then they saw every high hill, and all the thick trees, and they offered there their sacrifices, and there they presented the provocation of their offering: there also they made their sweet savour, and poured out there their drink offerings.
Eze 20:29 Then I said unto them, What [is] the high place whereunto ye go? And the name thereof is called Bamah unto this day.
Eze 20:30 Wherefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Are ye polluted after the manner of your fathers? and commit ye whoredom after their abominations?
Eze 20:31 For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be enquired of by you, O house of Israel? [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be enquired of by you.
Bamah
Bamah = "high place"
1) a place in Palestine (of places of idolatrous worship)
1Ki 11:7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that [is] before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 
1Ch 16:39 And Zadok the priest, and his brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of the LORD in the high place that [was] at Gibeon,
1Ch 21:29 For the tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of the burnt offering, [were] at that season in the high place at Gibeon.
ok well you get the picture..I hope..
They were given good laws, but because they chose to follow after their father's gods..God gave them what they wanted..and so there..
But if you can find the good ones mixed within the bad ones..like the parable of the wheat and tares..and keep the good ones and throw away the bad ones, then the law is only good and pure and clean..
I say James and Paul were working together because James says basically..It's impossible to keep the law..suggesting..why try?
where Paul says..don't try..just let it go..
It all depends on how you hear it..and with what frame of mind your listening with.
If you look for negativity you will find it.
And if you look for positives you will find that..
so..
what are you looking for? 
Hugs
Lone
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Porphyry
Paul did say that those advocating circumcision for Gentiles might as well go the whole way and castrate themselves.
However that doesn't include James. James signed off on the Jerusalem council letter of Acts 15. As such he sided with Paul against the circumcision faction, against Gentiles being made to stop eating pork, and against the Saturday Sabbath.
I would have thought that puts James firmly in the Pauline camp doesn't it?
God bless
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
