 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: My proof that Paul cursed James, the brother of Jesus |
 |
|
We can both agree that Paul cursed the legalistic Judaizers that were convincing his Galatian converts to become more legalistic:
| Quote: | 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1, NASB) |
So, all I need to do, to prove that Paul cursed James, is prove that James was one of those Judaizers that Paul cursed...right?
Eusebius, Constantine's Church historian of the 4th century, said James, the brother of Jesus, was a Jewish High Priest who offered animal sacrifices in the Holy of Holies.
=======
| Quote: | “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, “History of the Church”, Book 2, Chapter 23) |
Let’s take Hegessipus’s multiple assertions about James one at a time.
| Quote: | | “James didn't consume any wine or strong drink.” |
God commanded Aaron the High Priest and his successors to abstain from wine and strong drink:
8 The LORD then spoke to Aaron, saying,
9 "Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of meeting, so that you may not die—it is a perpetual statute throughout your generations—
10 and so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean,
11 and so as to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them through Moses." (Leviticus 10:8)
The same was commanded of anybody that made the "Nazarite Vow":
1 Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2 "Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them, 'When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite[1][I.e., one separated], to dedicate himself to the LORD,
3 he shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh or dried grapes." (Numbers 6)
| Quote: | | He ate no flesh (meat). |
While High priests were not forbidden to eat meat, eating meat brought up the possibility of ingesting blood, and eating of blood was certainly forbidden:
10 'And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' (Leviticus 17)
Given James' general popularity due to his great concern for justice and lawfulness, it is not stretch at all to assume he refrained from eating meat in order to insure that he'd never violate the prohibition against eating blood. While that sounds extremely picky to modern Americans, such pickiness was common in his day. The Pharisees exhibit similar high degree of worry about their diet; Jesus described them as “straining at a gnat” in Matthew 23:24, that is, they strained their drinks carefully before consumption, lest they unknowingly swallow a gnat, causing them to break God’s prohibition against eating certain types of insects:
20 'All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
23 'But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
41 'Now every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is detestable, not to be eaten.
42 'Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable.” (Leviticus 11)
Picky? Yes. Unreasonable inference? Not in the least. Especially given that the evidence on James as a whole argues for his great concern to obey the Mosaic legislation.
| Quote: | | no razor came upon James's head. |
God forbad Nazarite priests to shave their head:
5 'All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long." (Numbers 6)
| Quote: | | James didn't anoint himself with oil. |
If James wished to obey the instructions relevant to priests in the OT, why didn’t he anoint himself with oil? To be frank, nothing in the Law of Moses says any Jewish priest is supposed to anoint themselves with oil, but that one priest should anoint another. James was not a self-anointed priest.
| Quote: | | James ALONE was permitted to enter the Holy Place, because he wore linen and not wool. |
God says the high priests shall wear linen when they officiate in the Holy of Holies::
27 And they made the tunics of finely woven linen for Aaron and his sons,
28 and the turban of fine linen, and the decorated caps of fine linen, and the linen breeches of fine twisted linen," (Exodus 39)
2 And the LORD said to Moses, "Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.
3 "Aaron shall enter the holy place with this: with a bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.
4 "He shall put on the holy linen tunic, and the linen undergarments shall be next to his body, and he shall be girded with the linen sash, and attired with the linen turban (these are holy garments). Then he shall bathe his body in water and put them on. “ (Leviticus 16)
God says the high priest goes into the Holy of Holies alone:
6 Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship,
7 but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.” (Hebrews 9)
This point is particularly forceful, as the concern to wear only linen implies the expectation of performing animal blood atonement rituals in the Temple, and those atonement ceremonies were done in the Holy of Holies, the most sacred inner part of the temple that only the high priest was allowed to enter. What else is this saying about James, if it isn’t saying he was a High Priest? Who else but the high priest carries the distinction of being permitted to enter the Temple ALONE?
If James was in 100% agreement with Paul’s gospel doctrine, how likely is it that the jewish temple priests would permit James the Christian to be in the temple ALONE? Doesn’t this curious bit of history suggest strongly that the gospel embraced by James didn’t offend the Jews near as much as Paul’s did?
The idea that Christianity is fully compatible with the continuing significance of Mosaic temple ceremonies and animal blood atonement, is only scoffed by those who are blindly committed to apostle Paul’s particular version of the Gospel.
I must stress that Jesus never says anything in the gospels about how his death would do away with the office of temple high priest, and I must stress that there are plenty of admissions from Jesus that make his gospel square up perfectly with the duties of the high priests in the temple:
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. “ (Matthew 5)
This is just the tip of the ice-berg on evidences of James, the brother of Jesus, holding to a legalistic form of the gospel that Paul denounced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
james
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 576
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The high priest was a decendant of the Levitical tribe not of the tribe of Judah. Do you have biblical scripture which quotes James as a high priest and of the tribe of Levi and not of Judah. Or is all your evidence derived from Eusebius and Hegessipus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | | The high priest was a decendant of the Levitical tribe not of the tribe of Judah. Do you have biblical scripture which quotes James as a high priest and of the tribe of Levi and not of Judah. Or is all your evidence derived from Eusebius and Hegessipus. |
I've got biblical evidence that God himself ordained a man from the tribe of Judah to be high-priest, thus invalidating your argument that the high-priest HAD to be within the lineage of Levi:
First, is Luke correct to say that Jesus is a descendent of David through his mother's lineage?
If it was acceptable Jews to document their lineage through their mothers, then James, if he was a biological brother of Jesus and hence from the tribe of Judah, would be perfectly acceptable to Jews as High Priest in the Temple.
That's because Aaron's successor to the office of High Priest, was his son Eleazar. His mother was Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, and Amminadab was the great grandson of Perez, and Perez was from the tribe of Judah:
Amminadab is the great-grandson of Perez:
| Quote: | Ruth 4 --
18 Now these are the generations of Perez: to Perez was born Hezron,
19 and to Hezron was born Ram, and to Ram, Amminadab,
20 and to Amminadab was born Nahshon, and to Nahshon, Salmon |
and Perez is from the tribe of Judah:
| Quote: | Genesis 46:12 --
12 And the sons of Judah: Er and Onan and Shelah and Perez and Zerah (but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan). And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul. |
God commanded that Eleazar, from the tribe of Judah, to be High-Priest, by commanding Aaron's distinct linen clothes (worn by all high priests) be stripped from him and placed on his son Eleazar:
| Quote: | Numbers 20
25 "Take Aaron and his son Eleazar, and bring them up to Mount Hor;
26 and strip Aaron of his garments and put them on his son Eleazar. So Aaron will be gathered to his people, and will die there."
27 So Moses did just as the LORD had commanded, and they went up to Mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation.
28 And after Moses had stripped Aaron of his garments and put them on his son Eleazar, Aaron died there on the mountain top. Then Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain. |
Eleazar was given oversight of the priests and their temple duties:
| Quote: | Numbers 3
32 and Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest was the chief of the leaders of Levi, and had the oversight of those who perform the duties of the sanctuary. |
If God himself commands men from the tribe of Judah to be high priests, then you cannot negate James being a high priest simply because any brother of Jesus is from Judah. It is NOT true that a Jew must come from Levi in order to qualify for the priesthood.
God made an exception to your hard and fast rule of Levitical lineage with Aaron's own son!
There are other considerations:
Saying James was the brother of Jesus could be taken in different ways that open up the possibility for James to be a high priest:
a - James has a different father and mother than Jesus, and is only called his "brother" due to special status with Jesus. The fact that the first church ordained James to be their Bishop need not only imply biological relation to Jesus, it could also signify they knew James was an extra-special friend of Jesus.
b - Are you aware of the problem of "skipping generations" that plagues the Matthian and Lukan genealogies of Jesus? Such bad accounting does not inspire confidence that they are correctly tracing Jesus' lineage. He could easily be from the tribe of Judah and this fact covered up by one of those skipped generations.
c - As a skeptic, I'm well aware of the many times ancient histories contradict the biblical account. I have to wonder if you are aware of the danger to apologetics that you'd create if you decided that Eusebius used questionable historical sources for his "history". If his information on James is false, then that doesn't just mean Hegesippus was wrong, it also means Eusebius wasn't a very careful historian, or else didn't have the means to check his sources as thoroughly as we'd like to think he did.
We'd have to wonder how many other questionable sources and sloppy ancient historians Eusebius depended on for his other assertions about early Christianity.
And all historians are agreed that a historian's general reputation is a legitimate area of inquiry for those wondering whether his material is reliable. Not exactly good new for Christian scholars and apologists, whose arguments often depend on their blind acceptence of and uncritical use of Eusebius.
Wanna go there?
Or should we just take the easy way out, and admit that High Priests did not have to come from the tribe of Levi, meaning James's status as high priest is well within biblical guidelines for those who are allowed to become high priests? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 576
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I negate James as being high priest because no scripture in the Bible states this claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | | I negate James as being high priest because no scripture in the Bible states this claim. |
Then what do you do with the solid tradition, documented within Christian sources, that James was a legalist? How do you think Eusebius the Paulist could have admitted that, with it's anti-Paul ramifications, unless he honestly believed it to be a fact?
First, your short-shrifted answer tells me that you find it much easier to just sweep under the rug, anything and everything that doesn't square up with your interpretation of the bible, even if one of those things is a solidly based historical tradition grounded in Christian histories. That's very unscholarly of you and makes me wonder whether you are a King James Onlyist.
Second, did I refute you? How can you maintain that High Priests can only come from the line of Levi, having now discovered that God ordained a descendant of Judah to the High Priesthood?
Third, everything stated about James in the bible attributes legalism to him, and is perfectly compatible with him being also a High Priest of the Temple and a Christian at the same time. (in other words, there is no information in the NT that is sufficiently specific to warrant the conclusion that James believed Jesus' death on the cross took away the Mosaic Covenant and instituted a new one. Whatever change James thought Jesus' death brought about, his zealotry for the Law, clearly evidenced in Acts 21 (esp. vs. 20) indicate that he didn't think the change involved the abolition or "fulfillment" of the Mosaic Law.
If Acts 15 is all truthful, James's Christian beliefs would temper his High Priest beliefs, so he could have easily agreed with Paul that Gentiles need not be circumcized to be saved, while maintaining that Jews who become Christians must still recieve circumcision to be saved.
We can forget the contentious issue of whether James would have required Gentile believers to be circumcized (the question of whether Acts 15 give us an exhaustive list of all of James' demands on Gentiles.)
It is my contention that James and Paul disagree over whether Mosaic Law continues to be spiritually significant for JEWS who become Christians.
Paul doesn't merely teach that Gentiles don't need to be circumcized to be saved....he teaches that NOBODY needs to be circumcized in order to be saved.
Yet everything known about James from the bible and Christian histories indicates that he'd have maintained the necessity of circumcision for JEWS who become Christians. And that puts him at odds with Paul, who decried the Law as 100% impotent to contribute ANYTHING to salvation:
| Quote: | 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, " (Romans 4, NASB) |
I don't think you appreciate how "alone" Paul's justifying faith really is. He may have also taught that good works naturally result from a genuine faith, but that merely conflicts with his extreme statement in Romans 4:5 that it's possible to have a genuine saving faith that DOESN'T produce good works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 576
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you wrote,
First, your short-shrifted answer tells me that you find it much easier to just sweep under the rug, anything and everything that doesn't square up with your interpretation of the bible, even if one of those things is a solidly based historical tradition grounded in Christian histories. That's very unscholarly of you and makes me wonder whether you are a King James Onlyist
My answer was short because there is no scripture for the subject and being that this is so how is it that I " swept this under the rug because it does not square up with my interpretation of the Bible" There would need be scripture for this (that James was high priest) for it not to square up.
King James Onlyist ??????  That a new one on me.
Also I would be more than willing to accept any and all scriptures that show the High priest was a decendant of a tribe other than Levi. I never will quote myself as knowing everything and never being wrong, for I do not know everything and admitly know I have been wrong more often than I like to admit.
Not a King James Onlyist but a scripture Onlyist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| porphyry wrote: | | james wrote: | | The high priest was a decendant of the Levitical tribe not of the tribe of Judah. Do you have biblical scripture which quotes James as a high priest and of the tribe of Levi and not of Judah. Or is all your evidence derived from Eusebius and Hegessipus. |
I've got biblical evidence that God himself ordained a man from the tribe of Judah to be high-priest, thus invalidating your argument that the high-priest HAD to be within the lineage of Levi:
First, is Luke correct to say that Jesus is a descendent of David through his mother's lineage?
If it was acceptable Jews to document their lineage through their mothers, then James, if he was a biological brother of Jesus and hence from the tribe of Judah, would be perfectly acceptable to Jews as High Priest in the Temple. |
That's because Aaron's successor to the office of High Priest, was his son Eleazar. His mother was Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, and Amminadab was the great grandson of Perez, and Perez was from the tribe of Judah:
Amminadab is the great-grandson of Perez:
| Quote: | Ruth 4 --
18 Now these are the generations of Perez: to Perez was born Hezron,
19 and to Hezron was born Ram, and to Ram, Amminadab,
20 and to Amminadab was born Nahshon, and to Nahshon, Salmon |
and Perez is from the tribe of Judah:
| Quote: | Genesis 46:12 --
12 And the sons of Judah: Er and Onan and Shelah and Perez and Zerah (but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan). And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul. |
God commanded that Eleazar, from the tribe of Judah, to be High-Priest, by commanding Aaron's distinct linen clothes (worn by all high priests) be stripped from him and placed on his son Eleazar:
| Quote: | Numbers 20
25 "Take Aaron and his son Eleazar, and bring them up to Mount Hor;
26 and strip Aaron of his garments and put them on his son Eleazar. So Aaron will be gathered to his people, and will die there."
27 So Moses did just as the LORD had commanded, and they went up to Mount Hor in the sight of all the congregation.
28 And after Moses had stripped Aaron of his garments and put them on his son Eleazar, Aaron died there on the mountain top. Then Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain. |
Eleazar was given oversight of the priests and their temple duties:
| Quote: | Numbers 3
32 and Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest was the chief of the leaders of Levi, and had the oversight of those who perform the duties of the sanctuary. |
If God himself commands men from the tribe of Judah to be high priests, then you cannot negate James being a high priest simply because any brother of Jesus is from Judah. It is NOT true that a Jew must come from Levi in order to qualify for the priesthood.
God made an exception to your hard and fast rule of Levitical lineage with Aaron's own son!
There are other considerations:
Saying James was the brother of Jesus could be taken in different ways that open up the possibility for James to be a high priest:
a - James has a different father and mother than Jesus, and is only called his "brother" due to special status with Jesus. The fact that the first church ordained James to be their Bishop need not only imply biological relation to Jesus, it could also signify they knew James was an extra-special friend of Jesus.
b - Are you aware of the problem of "skipping generations" that plagues the Matthian and Lukan genealogies of Jesus? Such bad accounting does not inspire confidence that they are correctly tracing Jesus' lineage. He could easily be from the tribe of Judah and this fact covered up by one of those skipped generations.
c - As a skeptic, I'm well aware of the many times ancient histories contradict the biblical account. I have to wonder if you are aware of the danger to apologetics that you'd create if you decided that Eusebius used questionable historical sources for his "history". If his information on James is false, then that doesn't just mean Hegesippus was wrong, it also means Eusebius wasn't a very careful historian, or else didn't have the means to check his sources as thoroughly as we'd like to think he did.
We'd have to wonder how many other questionable sources and sloppy ancient historians Eusebius depended on for his other assertions about early Christianity.
And all historians are agreed that a historian's general reputation is a legitimate area of inquiry for those wondering whether his material is reliable. Not exactly good new for Christian scholars and apologists, whose arguments often depend on their blind acceptence of and uncritical use of Eusebius.
Wanna go there?
Or should we just take the easy way out, and admit that High Priests did not have to come from the tribe of Levi, meaning James's status as high priest is well within biblical guidelines for those who are allowed to become high priests?[/quote]
This is a very interesting post, and it deserves of careful attention. Unfortunately I do not have time to address all of it now, but I shall address the first part of it.
| porphyry wrote: | | james wrote: | | The high priest was a decendant of the Levitical tribe not of the tribe of Judah. Do you have biblical scripture which quotes James as a high priest and of the tribe of Levi and not of Judah. Or is all your evidence derived from Eusebius and Hegessipus. |
I've got biblical evidence that God himself ordained a man from the tribe of Judah to be high-priest, thus invalidating your argument that the high-priest HAD to be within the lineage of Levi:
First, is Luke correct to say that Jesus is a descendent of David through his mother's lineage?
If it was acceptable Jews to document their lineage through their mothers, then James, if he was a biological brother of Jesus and hence from the tribe of Judah, would be perfectly acceptable to Jews as High Priest in the Temple. |
Luke does NOT trace the genealogy of Jesus trough Mary; Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph.
Luke 3:23. When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, (NASB, 1995)
The notion that Luke traced the genealogy of Jesus trough Mary was popularized by Annius of Viterbo, an Italian Domincan friar, but there is no Biblical or reliable historical basis for this notion which contradicts Luke’s own words in Luke 3:23, and fails to square up with Luke 1:26-27,
26. Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth,
27. to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Therefore, that notion is rejected today by the vast majority (if not all) scholars of Luke's Gospel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 576
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eleazar was of the tribe of Judah, on his mothers side, if I am understanding you correctly. But what validated him to be in line for the high priestly duties was that his father Aaron was a levite. Aarons son, regardless of his mothers geneology, was to be high priest because he was Aarons son, a Levite.
As for the geneologies, in Matthews geneology of Joseph it traces through Judah, Lukes traces through Levi, if Luke is not Mary's and Joseph's is through Judah, of whom is Lukes which is through Levi ??? It can not be Joseph's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | Eleazar was of the tribe of Judah, on his mothers side, if I am understanding you correctly. But what validated him to be in line for the high priestly duties was that his father Aaron was a levite. Aarons son, regardless of his mothers geneology, was to be high priest because he was Aarons son, a Levite.
As for the geneologies, in Matthews geneology of Joseph it traces through Judah, Lukes traces through Levi, if Luke is not Mary's and Joseph's is through Judah, of whom is Lukes which is through Levi ??? It can not be Joseph's. |
For an excellent, detailed, and highly academic discussion of the problems in Luke’s account of the genealogy of Jesus, see the following:
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1981. Pp. 488-505.
This is the first of two volumes of an excellent 1,642 page commentary on Luke’s Gospel in the Anchor Bible series. It addresses the many difficult questions regarding Luke 3:23-38 to which the finest scholars of Luke’s Gospel have devoted countless hours of research and summarizes the results of that research and the academic discussions of it. It also includes an excellent bibliography of Luke 3:23-38.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 576
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for the info Craig. I believe all answers come from scripture within themselves John 14:16, John 7:14-15, Acts 4:13 and my favorite........
Mark 12:37 - and the common people heard Him gladly. For all the years I dove into theological studies, reading Josephus, Philo, Ecclisiastical History, Hislop's 'Two Babylons, works of the early church fathers(too numerous to list), works of Justin, looking into the original Greek and Hebrew language, studying ecumenical coucils and church councils; studying doctrines, denominations and their origins........etc. All this for years until I realized the scriptures are for all ignorant, unlearned, whoever you are the Bible is for all. And written for all to see. And nothing was as fullfilling as finding scripture answers itself, all I need is in one book, The Word of God, The Holy Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| porphyry wrote: | | God made an exception to your hard and fast rule of Levitical lineage with Aaron's own son! |
No, He did not! Eleazar was Aaron’s son and therefore he was a Levite. His other relatives are irrelevant to the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| porphyry wrote: | It is my contention that James and Paul disagree over whether Mosaic Law continues to be spiritually significant for JEWS who become Christians.
Paul doesn't merely teach that Gentiles don't need to be circumcized to be saved....he teaches that NOBODY needs to be circumcized in order to be saved.
Yet everything known about James from the bible and Christian histories indicates that he'd have maintained the necessity of circumcision for JEWS who become Christians. And that puts him at odds with Paul, who decried the Law as 100% impotent to contribute ANYTHING to salvation:
| Quote: | 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, " (Romans 4, NASB) |
I don't think you appreciate how "alone" Paul's justifying faith really is. He may have also taught that good works naturally result from a genuine faith, but that merely conflicts with his extreme statement in Romans 4:5 that it's possible to have a genuine saving faith that DOESN'T produce good works. |
The theological differences between James and Paul are mostly imaginary and based on a less than careful reading of the New Testament. This less than careful reading of the New Testament has caused many to overlook the fact that when Paul wrote of “works” in reference to salvation or justification he was writing exclusively of “works of the Law” and that when James wrote of “works” in reference to salvation or justification he was writing exclusively of good works—not of obeying the Law for the Law’s sake, but doing good works as the believer in Christ walks in the Spirit. This fact becomes especially clear when we read Rom. 1-8 as a unit rather than as miscellaneous individual verses. These first eight chapters of Romans are a unit in which Paul argues that the Law, that is, the old covenant, is not efficacious in saving anyone but God’s grace is efficacious to save those who accept it through faith in Christ. Good works are, therefore, totally out of his mind in these eight chapters.
This fact is even clearer in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians:
Gal. 2:16. nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Gal. 3:2. This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
Gal. 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."
James, on the other hand, wrote,
James 2:14. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
15. If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16. and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
17. Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
19. You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
20. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22. You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.
24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
26. For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
Notice especially verse 21. The works which James writes saved Abraham were not works of the Law. Abraham was not obeying any Old Testament laws when he offered up Isaac on the altar—he was obeying the voice of God. And likewise, Christians, having been given the Holy Spirit, are expected by God, not to legalistically obey the Old Testament laws, but to listen to the Holy Spirit and be obedient to Him.
And be sure to notice verse 25. Rahab did NOT receive the messengers because the Old Testament Law told her to do so—she was obeying the voice of God (although she may not have been conscious that she was doing so).
All Scripture quotations are from the NASB, 1995.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | you wrote,
My answer was short because there is no scripture for the subject and being that this is so how is it that I " swept this under the rug because it does not square up with my interpretation of the Bible" There would need be scripture for this (that James was high priest) for it not to square up. |
What exactly do you have to say about the fact that all major church historians in the ancient world agree that James was a legalist?
True scholars don't simply say "but it's not in the bible, so I don't believe it". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig2uguys wrote: |
Luke does NOT trace the genealogy of Jesus trough Mary; Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph.
Luke 3:23. When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, (NASB, 1995)
The notion that Luke traced the genealogy of Jesus trough Mary was popularized by Annius of Viterbo, an Italian Domincan friar, but there is no Biblical or reliable historical basis for this notion which contradicts Luke’s own words in Luke 3:23, and fails to square up with Luke 1:26-27,
26. Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth,
27. to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Therefore, that notion is rejected today by the vast majority (if not all) scholars of Luke's Gospel. |
Did you ever ask yourself WHY any Christian would try to argue that Luke's genealogy traces Mary's lineage?
the reason Christians drummed up the "mary's geneaology" to explain Luke is because while Luke says Joseph's father is Heli, Matthew says it was Jacob:
| Quote: |
Matthew 1:16 and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. |
The most conservative of the commentaries out there, JFB, says on Luke 3:23
| Quote: | | "Have we in this genealogy, as well as in Matthew's, the line of Joseph? or is this the line of Mary? -- a point on which there has been great difference of opinion and much acute discussion.' |
Perhaps there is too much debate on the matter to rely on the gospel genealogies to "prove" anything.
Either way, the tradition that James was a legalist and High Priest is to strong to just assume it must be wrong because the bible links him to the line of Judah. The bible might be wrong. Indeed, do you know what do to when a solidly based historical tradition about a biblical character, "contradicts" what the bible says? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
porphyry
Growing Guppy
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | | Eleazar was of the tribe of Judah, on his mothers side, if I am understanding you correctly. But what validated him to be in line for the high priestly duties was that his father Aaron was a levite. Aarons son, regardless of his mothers geneology, was to be high priest because he was Aarons son, a Levite. |
My point was that succession through Levi was not this hard and fast rule that you think it is. Heck, the Jewish Encyclopedia agrees with me that others outside the line of Levi could and did hold the priesthood:
| Quote: | Aaron, though he is but rarely called "the great priest," being generally simply designated "as ha- kohen" (the priest), was the first incumbent of the office, to which he was appointed by God (Ex. xxviii. 1, 2; xxix. 4, 5). The succession was to be through one of his sons, and was to remain in his own family (Lev. vi. 15; comp. Josephus, "Ant." xx. 10, § 1). Failing a son, the office devolved upon the brother next of age: such appears to have been the practise in the Maccabean period. In the time of ELI, however (I Sam. ii. 23), the office passed to the collateral branch of Ithamar (see Eleazar). But Solomon is reported to have deposed Abiathar, and to have appointed Zadok, a descendant of Eleazar, inhis stead (I Kings ii. 35; I Chron. xxiv. 2, 3). After the Exile, the succession seems to have been, at first, in a direct line from father to son; but later the civil authorities arrogated to themselves the right of appointment. Antiochus IV., Epiphanes, for instance, deposed Onias III. in favor of Jason, who was followed by Menelaus (Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; II Macc. iii. 4, iv. 23).
Jewish Encyclopedia on the internet.
As for the geneologies, in Matthews geneology of Joseph it traces through Judah, Lukes traces through Levi, if Luke is not Mary's and Joseph's is through Judah, of whom is Lukes which is through Levi ??? It can not be Joseph's. |
You'll have to get together with Craig and figure out your differences and get back to me when you've straightened that stuff out.
Last edited by porphyry on Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
