Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

My proof that Paul cursed James, the brother of Jesus

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> The Ten Commandments and Laws of the Bible

Author

Message

james
Bear

Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 658

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject:

porphyry wrote, You need to do your homework a little more. In the case of Eleazor, the priesthood passed out of the line of Levi, as I documented earlier from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Or we can read what the Bible plainly sets forth: Exodus 6:25 - And Eleazar, Aaron's son took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife; and she bare him Phineas: these are THE HEADS OF THE FATHERS OF THE LEVITES ACCORDING TO THEIR FAMILIES. It seems we have a Jewish encyclopidia which conflicts not only with the Bible but also the Torah. Also Eusebius' works are great for reference material, but not inspired of God. I have to stand on what the Bible and Torah says over others.

towshab
Labrador

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 312

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:16 pm 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:

No you don't, you have GT text that is untrue. Priests were to come from the tribe of Levi. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Quote:

First, is Luke correct to say that Jesus is a descendent of David through his mother's lineage?

No because Mary is never mentioned in the lineage record. To say so is apologetics at best.

Quote:

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?

Sorry, but tribal affiliation is through father, not mother. Return to square #1.

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject:

Zathrus wrote:

It is understandable that because the first believers in Christ were Jews, and Jesus was sent first to Israel, that the faith of the early Christians would be a very Jewish one. Paul understood that if this work that God was doing was going to include all who wanted to enter the kingdom whether Jew or Gentile, requiring those who believed to observe Jewish customs was not going to work. And he understood that that's not what it's all about. But that was way too much for the Jewish believers in Jerusalem to deal with.

The elders and Paul agreed to preserve the unity by having Paul appear to be something he was not. In retrospect, that may not have been a real great idea. As hard as it may have been for them to swallow, it would probably have been better if they'd taken a stand for the gospel and declared that observance of Jewish customs, even by Jewish believers, was not required.

James was the Bishop of the Church and Paul had little choice but to obey him. I believe that James understood and agreed with Paul’s theology (see my earlier posts in this thread), but that James had the wisdom to know better than to make a very bad situation even worse and that he therefore told Paul to attempt to mitigate the hostility of the Jews toward him by showing them that the accusations brought against them had been greatly exaggerated.

Obviously enough, however, the plan did not work as well as they had hoped and Paul was taken into Roman custody. History tells us, however, that the Ante-Nicene Church very early on accepted Paul’s theology as consistent with the teachings of Christ and accepted Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, in which he taught that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law, as inspired Scripture.

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject:

porphyry wrote:

Well thank you very much for distancing yourself on the other side of the universe from conservative Christians!

The truth is the truth whether it is taught by a conservative or liberal Christian. The very same thing applies to falsehood.

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject:

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.

Not a single early historian wrote that James the Just was a Jewish High Priest! Careless reading may cause a man to interpret them to be writing such a thing, but of course it could not have been. 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 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.

As for the opinions of these historians regarding the theology of James, what was their source? Was it not the Epistle of James? And did they not misunderstand it as badly as many conservative and liberal scholars do today?

Zathrus
King Kong

Joined: 28 Aug 2002

Posts: 2207

Location: WI USA

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject:

porphyry wrote:

Yes, and I maintain that Paul's desire to become a Jew to Jews and a Gentile to Gentile, looks exactly like a business decision to try to increase sales by making yourself look and sound more like the audience you are trying to reach.

Paul explained in one of his letter why he did this. You can view is as salesmanship if you wish, or as trying not to let the culture of those he preached to get in the way of a larger issue: the redemptive work of Christ.

Whether you see it as the former or the latter is up to you.

porphyry wrote:

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that Paul was arrested because the Jews who observed his conformity to the ceremonial rites there, thought that Paul was merely showboating to appease his audience, and not sincere in the ritual, thus mocking things they regarded as serious and holy?

I think so. They already believed Paul taught all men to forsake the Laws of Moses (verses 21 and 28), and apparantly, Paul's participation in the Nazarite vow did NOT convince them Paul took this part of the Mosaic Law seriously.

I think that's not only more accurate but also more damaging to the conservative Christians, who are forever insisting that the rumor these Jews heard about Paul teaching against Moses was false.

Whatever Paul did to appease them, he failed to convince them that he took the seriously the ceremonies of Mosaic Law.

Did Paul fail to convince them, because these Jews were just closed-minded and not willing to be corrected in their view of Paul? Not likely, because verse 27 says the arrest in verse 28 occured when the 7 days were almost over.

Interesting points, and worth more study.
The passage plainly says, though, that they thought Paul had brought Gentiles into the temple. From reading the passage it is easier for me to believe that they never even thought Paul was showboating, but rather thought that Paul was flagrantly defiling the temple by bringing Gentiles into it, as though to flaunt his teachings that Jews living among Gentiles should not continue their Jewish customs in their face.

porphyry wrote:

But if Paul's gospel was the same as Jesus' gospel, then that requires that Jesus had always been teaching Pauline stuff, like doing away with the ceremonial laws by his death. Did Jesus' original Jewish church simply go deaf conveniently everytime Jesus tried to advance Pauline doctrine?

Or do they oppose Paul because Jesus never taught them such Pauline doctrines to begin with?

I think you are not understanding Jesus. I did not say you're not understanding Jesus' teaching. You are correct that Jesus taught strict adherence to all of the old covenant laws.

But just as the two disciples on the road to Emaus had the scriptures opened to them so that their hearts burned within them, the apostles after Jesus resurrection had their eyes opened to the plan of God and Jesus being the fulfillment of it.

Jesus did not teach Pauline doctrine because His life was Pauline doctrine. Paul taught Christ the fulfillment of all that the law and prophets foretold.

porphyry wrote:

If you truly believe God wants your customers to pay $7 for a hammer at your store, you are not going to lower the price simply because you know they aren't willing to pay that much. You will maintain conformity with the truth at all costs. Otherwise you are a sellout. Agreed?

If I truly believed everyone on a ship needs a life preserver, I would see that there are greater things at stake than whether the people on the boat are white, black, Asian, gay, straight, Italian, German, - or Jew or Gentile. I would not let those things get in the way. I would not let them become an issue. I'd make sure everyone who wanted one got a life preserver.

porphyry wrote:

The fact that they found the Gentile gospel so unacceptable, implies that Jesus never ever told them that salvation SHOULD go to the Gentiles.

But Jesus did say it WOULD go to the Gentiles. I would remind you again that Jesus' first priority was the house of Israel. But even in ministering to them, He told them that they would be cast out of the kingdom and others would come from the north, south, east and west to sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God. Who could He have meant? That was just one parable. This theme of impending judgement on Israel and the gospel going to the Gentiles runs through many of His parables.

Furthermore, even if Jesus hadn't come out and said it, the prophets of the old testament fortold it. Jesus did nothing but fulfill their words (which explains where He got the material for His parables), and Paul did nothing other than proclaim that the fulfillment had come.

porphyry wrote:

Well thank you very much for distancing yourself on the other side of the universe from conservative Christians!

Thanks for admitting that Paul pretended to be something he was not, you've now made it very easy for me to therefore argue that he wasn't an authentic apostle either. Pretending to be something you aren't, is strictly business decision to increase sales, not a pure heart devoted to the truth at all costs.

I cannot take credit for having uncovered that nugget of truth. It was pointed out to me. But it is plain to read. We Christians often fail to consider passages in light of other passages. Yes, in Acts, it was decided to try to make Paul look as though he was not teaching that Jews among Gentiles should abandon Jewish exclusionary customs, but I believe it is in Galatians where Paul writes that he did teach that very thing.

But I have only made it easy for you to argue that Paul was a fallible man. I do not see a case here for saying that he was not an apostle.

Actually, I think the elders talking Paul into trying to fool the believers in Jerusalem says worse things about the elders, and James their leader, than it says about Paul. Far worse things.

And I am sure you are aware that James the Lord's brother was not an apostle, right? That's not even open to subjective opinion, such as yours of Paul. James was not, never was, one of the 12. Some suggest he was only leader of the council because Jewish tradition dictated that that place would go to the next of kin once the Head of the church was not there (in flesh).

porphyry wrote:

so then what do you think of Christians who insist that Paul made a good decision here, and it was simply the stupidity and impulisiveness of the Jews that caused his arrest? Would you agree with me that such Christians appear to be more concerned to maintian their beliefs, than they are in determining the truth here?

Such Christians are unaware (as I was, because before I compared the account in Acts with what Paul wrote in Galatians, I also understood the record in Acts as telling us that the elders' suggestion to Paul was a good idea when in fact it was deceptive) that there is a beautiful gospel truth to be learned, in fact several gospel truths, from understanding the story correctly.

One truth is that maintaining a separation between the very Judaic believers with their exclusivist traditions, and the Gentile believers whom God was saving, was a bad idea. Through Christ, God had made all men brothers, and as hard as that would have been to swallow, that's what the Jewish believers in Jerusalem should have been told.

porphyry wrote:

Romans 4:5, the faith of somebody who does not work will justify them, is perfectly Antinomian. Paulists consistently stumble over "does not work" there, because they themselves do not believe that the faith of the person who doesn't work is a genuine saving faith. But Paul sure did.

I am aware of the contradiction between Romans 4 and what James wrote. And it has been suggested to me that James may have written what he wrote specifically to try to refute Paul.

Both men taught that works will follow faith. But Paul wrote that a man is counted righteous before those works (he uses Abraham's circumcision as example) show themselves. James made a distinction that faith is not saving faith unless works have shown themselves. These two are not the same thing.

I have read a definition of antinomianism as "having principles/morals/scruples that originate from within rather than being outwardly imposed by rules or regulations". I would agree that by that definition, Paul was antinomian, and that I am, and that every man of integrity, anyone inwardly just, is also.

porphyry wrote:

What do you think about James being a high-priest according to Eusebius?

I really haven't read much about this. It's not stated in scripture, and I don't spend enough time reading the church fathers, Josephus, theology books, etc.
I do think it would be one of those ironies we often find in the Bible, that Jesus was God's Messiah, and His own brother was a priest who clung to the old order.

The gospel of John does say that Jesus' own brothers did not believe Him. I have to wonder if this meant James too, and if he ever truly came to faith.

Zathrus
King Kong

Joined: 28 Aug 2002

Posts: 2207

Location: WI USA

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject:

Craig2uguys wrote:

James was the Bishop of the Church and Paul had little choice but to obey him.

True. That's a very good point. It may have been no different than when Paul withdrew his insult to the high priest, in Acts.

Craig2uguys wrote:

I believe that James understood and agreed with Paul’s theology (see my earlier posts in this thread), but that James had the wisdom to know better than to make a very bad situation even worse and that he therefore told Paul to attempt to mitigate the hostility of the Jews toward him by showing them that the accusations brought against them had been greatly exaggerated.

It can be seen as a wise decision that backfired, or a foolish decision. Some have even suggested that James may not have been the least bit sorry to see Paul arrested.
Hard to tell from where we stand, but as I look deeper into it, I am finding that despite man's fallibilities and even in them, the gospel message is shown to be true.

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject:

porphyry wrote:

What's more likely? That all of the evidence for James's own legalism is false, and Acts reports James truthfully when he says he didn't send out these legalistic brothers from his very own church?

Or that the evidences of James's legalism stand firm, and Acts is likely spin-doctoring a kernel of historical truth to lessen the conflict between James, the undisputed leader, and Paul, the oddball who is forever defending his independence from the apostles, but who cannot afford to go as far as plainly saying James was a heretic?

The only evidence supporting the notion that James was a legalist is, as I have documented earlier in the thread, an incorrect interpretation of the Epistle of James. The notion that the words spoken by James in Acts 15:24 do not accurately represent what he spoke because conservative Christians believe they do accurately represent what he spoke is nothing but a biased conclusion based upon biased thinking. The simple fact that conservative Christians believe something to be true does not mean that it is not true.

james
Bear

Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 658

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject:

porphyry, I can not find where Eusebius stated James was the high priest, can you show me. All I was able to find was in Book 2 Chapter 23 - (1) "The Jews, after Paul had appealed to Ceasar and been sent by Festus to Rome, frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by their snares they had laid, turned themselves against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem was committed by the apostles." Then in going down two paragraphs Eusebius quotes Hegesippus' commentaries and works of Josephus. If Eusebius believed James was high priest he never states it, or knew it. Whether or not it is true (from a theologic standpoint)we would have to base it on the validity of Hegesippus' commentaries. Where his works seem to imply James was high priest. And yet would not all this be in vain, for the very scriptures, the very same bible you quote from in your post, declare with clarity the high priest, Eleazar, is a Levite. Exodus 6:25

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject:

porphyry wrote:

James was the head of the Jerusalem faction of the Church in Acts 21:18, yet in verse 21, James's church tells Paul "we are all zealous for the Law".

The verse that you are attempting to quote from is not found in Acts 21:21, but in Acts 21:20,

20. And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; (NASB, 1995)

James and the elders were NOT zealous for the Law; indeed, when they heard what Paul had spoken they glorified God, agreeing with Paul. Very many of the unbelieving Jews, however, were zealous for the Law. And James was not merely “the head of the Jerusalem faction of the Church,” he was the presiding Bishop over all of the Church.

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:18 pm Post subject:

Zathrus wrote:

I am aware of the contradiction between Romans 4 and what James wrote. And it has been suggested to me that James may have written what he wrote specifically to try to refute Paul.

As I wrote earlier in this thread,

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.

Zathrus
King Kong

Joined: 28 Aug 2002

Posts: 2207

Location: WI USA

Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject:

...and Abraham was also obeying the voice of God when he received the circumcision. However, Paul writes that Abraham was approved of God as being righteous because of the faith which he had in the promise of God, which came before his circumcision. James OTOH, writes that the work would have had to be present before Abraham's faith could have resulted in his righteousness. And regarding Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Paul writes that Abrahams' obedience to God in this matter sprang from his faith in God's promise to make him a father of many nations, and that that faith was what caused righteousness to be imputed to him. So according to Paul, Abraham was justified without having sacrificed Isaac. James OTOH, clearly states "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?" Paul is not restricting himself to adherance to old testament laws. He is addressing the principle of salvation through works and saying it is not what the old testament taught.

atoz
Emperor of the Solar System

Joined: 28 Jun 2007

Posts: 4189

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: Re: My proof that Paul cursed James, the brother of Jesus

porphyry wrote:

We can both agree that Paul cursed the legalistic Judaizers that were convincing his Galatian converts to become more legalistic:

.....

Hi P,

Paul not only cursed the legalistic judaizers and james but also cursed barnabas and all others. Acts 15:39.

The key is HOW Paul cursed.

Paul cursed in Love like JC and God curse.

God and JC love themselves as blessers and cursers,
Mt 5:43-48,
so that
they bless in Love of cursers, Levit 26
and
they curse in Love of blessers. levit 26.

That Love
makes blessings out of curses,
and
makes double blessings out of blessings.
2 Cor 12:7-10.

So there is nothing wrong with cursing or curses of themselves:
the only wrong with curses is any Hate for the ones cursed IN the curse...which curse of Hatred results in us blessing in Love and cursing in HATE from the same mouth! James 3.

And there is nothing so good about blessings: it's the Love IN them that is so good!

Without Love, all blessings are curses--in disguise!
With Love, all curses are blessings ---in disguise!
1 Cor 13:1-3.

So as per 2 Cor 12:7-10,
Paul not only took in Love God's curses that God cursed in Love,but he also cursed others with the same blessing of Love.

So we can be also sure that James took paul's curses in Love,
made them in blessings,
and probably cursed paul back in love,
which paul took in Love, of course,
and then turned James' curses in to---blessings!smile

Hope that helps.

Please ask any questions.

In the Blessing of Blessings and the Gift of Gifts that Love is,
which Love
turns all curses into blessings and legalisms in to eagleisms,
and
makes us twice as blessed and twice as eagled
when blessed and when legal,smile
atoz

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject:

Zathrus wrote:

...and Abraham was also obeying the voice of God when he received the circumcision. However, Paul writes that Abraham was approved of God as being righteous because of the faith which he had in the promise of God, which came before his circumcision.
James OTOH, writes that the work would have had to be present before Abraham's faith could have resulted in his righteousness.

And regarding Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Paul writes that Abrahams' obedience to God in this matter sprang from his faith in God's promise to make him a father of many nations, and that that faith was what caused righteousness to be imputed to him. So according to Paul, Abraham was justified without having sacrificed Isaac.

James OTOH, clearly states "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?"

Paul is not restricting himself to adherance to old testament laws. He is addressing the principle of salvation through works and saying it is not what the old testament taught.

Paul is NOT addressing the principle of salvation through works; he is teaching the Jewish part of the congregation in Rome that the Law cannot justify anyone and is reminding them that Abraham was not justified by keeping the Abrahamic Covenant, the proof of which was that he was justified before he was circumcised, the very law that was so sacred to the Jews that Jewish Christians had a great deal of difficulty in laying it aside, and the very law over which there was the most contention in the first century church.

Gen. 17:10. "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.

Some may argue that the Abrahamic covenant came BEFORE the Law and was never a part of the Law, but Paul certainly was not of that opinion.

Gal. 4:21. Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
23. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
24. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
25. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
27. For it is written, "REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."
28. And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
30. But what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN."

Here we find one of Paul’s many references to the two covenants—the covenant of Law and the covenant of grace. True, in the Greek text of Gal. 4:21, “law” in the first clause is anarthrous but articular in the second clause (and as translated above), but the context shows us very clearly that Paul is writing of the Mosaic Law (the Law of Moses) in both clauses. And, of course, in the minds of first century Jews the Abrahamic covenant was as much a part of the Mosaic Law as were the Ten Commandments.

James, on the other hand, writes of the “royal law,”

James 2:8. If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.

And he instructs his readers, not to obey the Law of Moses, but to love one another and to act like it. Therefore, if James was a legalist, so was the Apostle John, and so was our Savior. If Paul cursed James, he also cursed the Apostle John and even Jesus. I simply cannot accept the idea that Paul cursed Jesus. (All Scriptures quoted are from the NASB, 1995)

porphyry
Growing Guppy

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject:

james wrote:

porphyry,

I can not find where Eusebius stated James was the high priest, can you show me. All I was able to find was in Book 2 Chapter 23 - (1) "The Jews, after Paul had appealed to Ceasar and been sent by Festus to Rome, frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by their snares they had laid, turned themselves against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem was committed by the apostles."
Then in going down two paragraphs Eusebius quotes Hegesippus' commentaries and works of Josephus. If Eusebius believed James was high priest he never states it, or knew it.

Then you read where Eusebius said James was a high priest, you just didn't catch it.

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..."

The only person in Jewish history that was allowed to enter the holy place ALONE was the High Priest, and Hegesippus explains it was because James wore not wool but linen, which was required dress of high priests in Exodus 28.

Quote:

Whether or not it is true (from a theologic standpoint)we would have to base it on the validity of Hegesippus' commentaries. Where his works seem to imply James was high priest.

And yet would not all this be in vain, for the very scriptures, the very same bible you quote from in your post, declare with clarity the high priest, Eleazar, is a Levite. Exodus 6:25

People can do whatever they want. The fact that the bible says the high priest must be from the line of Levi doesn't suddenly mean the Jews held to this.

You should first suppose they probably DIDN'T adhere to this biblical mandate, given their history of constantly perverting the word of God and worshipping idols.

Either way, The Jewish encyclopedia disagrees with you, and admits that the the priesthood passed from Levi to the collateral line of Eli, and also states that very often civil leaders picked the high priest and that even the general populace often voted them in.

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).
Herod nominated no less than six high priests; Archelaus, two. The Roman legate Quirinius and his successors exercised the right of appointment, as did Agrippa I., Herod of Chalcis, and Agrippa II. Even the people occasionally elected candidates to the office.
from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=H&artid=721

There is historical evidence to prove that the Jews accepted high priests that were NOT of the tribe of Levi, as such, the command for levitical descent, was not followed so closely that it would exclude James from the priesthood. The door is wide open to the possibility that they could have made James a high priest even though they knew this was in disobedience to God.

Your should never base your argument on what you think the Jews SHOULD have done. They have too inconsistent of a track record in the bible for you to rest assured they'd always do something God's way.

So James's high priesthood could easily be both historical true and yet against the bible's prescribed method of appointing High priests.

So no, what Eusebius said is NOT all in vain. He would hardly have preserved this truth about James that makes him sound exactly like a high priest, if Eusebius had any reason to think this historical info was unfounded.

Thus Hegesippus's quote appears to pass the criteria of embarrassment. Eusebius wouldn't have give us this tidbit on James if it wasn't true, because makes James appear more legalistic and thus against Paul, than even the biblical portrait does.

James being a high priest is a fairly solid historical position, and so far, your objections have not made it likely that this tradition about him was false. We thus continue to give Hegesippus the benefit of the doubt, until you supply reason to withdraw such trust.

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> The Ten Commandments and Laws of the Bible	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4