Let’s look at Paul
Dave P

Grayson, KY

#182 Jan 21, 2014
My guess is that James had copies of Paul's letters in front of him when he wrote his letter and he mistakenly assumed Paul had quoted Genesis accurately, probably because it sounded very close to what he remembered of it. So he used Paul's quote and went about refuting Paul's doctrine on other logical grounds.

That's from JVC. Fact checking-

Romans- written 56-57 AD.
James- written 48-50 AD.

Fact is that judaism v christianity guy guessed wrong. What else has he screwed up? Plenty.
Dave P

Grayson, KY

#183 Jan 21, 2014
"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law, that (for this purpose) every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the Law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:19,20
This begins to defy words to describe the blasphemous lie that it is. But hey! Paul has to come up with some reason for the Law's existence after demolishing the truth!

That is judaism v christianity guy. Fact check-

10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

James said this, and he said it first. Why is not James accused of blasphemy as well?
Barnsweb

Akron, OH

#184 Jan 21, 2014
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
What did Jesus leave us? A Church built on Peter, not a book. The Bible is a tool for teaching. Where do you get what you attempt to explain your asinine views? The Church.
If you follow Jesus words only, you will be joining the next RCIA program.
That's what your Church told you it means, but that isn't what Jesus said. He never claimed He was building His Church on Peter and not what He taught or did.

It isn't about Peter - Jesus told all the disciples, which included Peter, that He (Jesus) alone was to be the Teacher. That certainly didn't focus on Peter;-)

Now go back and see if you can make sense of the truth He gave, as well as understand grace as He taught.
Barnsweb

Akron, OH

#185 Jan 21, 2014
Dave P wrote:
BW's thing with Luther is completely crazy. Luther wrote "against the Jew", hated the book of James, wanted Jews executed basically. But wants to use Luther for his POV?
All of BW's arguments are nothing short of absolute historical blunders.
Some of the greatest men have come to different conclusions through careful study than what they believed at the start. Luther included.
Barnsweb

Akron, OH

#186 Jan 21, 2014
Dave P wrote:
My guess is that James had copies of Paul's letters in front of him when he wrote his letter and he mistakenly assumed Paul had quoted Genesis accurately, probably because it sounded very close to what he remembered of it. So he used Paul's quote and went about refuting Paul's doctrine on other logical grounds.
That's from JVC. Fact checking-
Romans- written 56-57 AD.
James- written 48-50 AD.
Fact is that judaism v christianity guy guessed wrong. What else has he screwed up? Plenty.
James dated the manuscript/letter!? You really need to evaluate the truth on the words of God.
Barnsweb

Akron, OH

#187 Jan 21, 2014
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said Peter wasn't sent to the Gentiles first. But eventually Peter stayed in Jerusalem and Paul and others ventured out to the Gentiles.
At the point Paul is speaking of in Galatians, Peter had posted up and set up shop in Jerusalem. He wasn't going out into the missionary fields at that point.
It's called progression in the history timeline BW. Paul wasn't lying, and no one is pitting Paul vs Peter and Luke (well, except you). The rest of us understand how the progression of history unfolded.
Did Paul write that angels, and not God, had given the law to Moses?
Did Paul write and teach that it could be acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols?
Did Paul ever write that the Law was nailed to the cross?
Did Paul ever write that the Law was of no effect any more on the principle that marriage is no longer valid after the previous mate had died and then apply this analogy to the Law having passed away and is no longer binding?

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a once for all delivered truth. We either realize the gospel is what Jesus lived, taught, preached and completed of the prophecies He 'must fulfill'?

The gospel is the fulfillment of Gods' covenant with Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob and David and the rest of the prophets. It's bringing light to the truth of God that even Gentiles should be able to see if they believe. It isn't veiled anymore to those who believe, and it is unchanging and true for all generations until His return to judge the world and reward those who were faithful believers and doers of the will of God as shown by the Son.

I'll follow Jesus. Jesus said "Follow Me". Will you repent and follow Jesus? He said "Whosoever wills" may partake of the waters of life freely and without cost.
Barnsweb

Akron, OH

#188 Jan 21, 2014
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com

No one but me?;-) Hardly:-)
William

Birmingham, AL

#189 Jan 21, 2014
Dave P wrote:
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
James said this, and he said it first. Why is not James accused of blasphemy as well?
Because James knew the deal about the law. It was never put in place for someone to adhere to in order to become righteous, it was put in place to show Israel that they cannot be righteous by trying to keep it.

Outside of Jesus, there is not one person in the entire Bible that ever "became righteous," or ever managed to "clean up their flesh so as to please God". And there certainly aren't any around today either. Striving and striving striving and keeping the ten commandments and not cheating on your taxes, not kicking the cat, and tithing 10% yada yada yada etc. will land you in hell, just like everyone else that ever tried to "keep the law in order to be saved."

What's the answer then?

We need the righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed to us. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is the only thing that God is going to accept on our behalf, but almost no one actually believes this.

This is what Paul is trying to convey. Christ did the work at Calvary for us. We were crucified when he was crucified. We were baptized with the baptism of death, same as him. The faith OF Jesus Christ is our faith, because of what he did for us.
Dave P

Clarkesville, GA

#190 Jan 21, 2014
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
James dated the manuscript/letter!? You really need to evaluate the truth on the words of God.
Just how many experts, ancient witnesses, scholars do you need to show that your idea of history and timelines is hopelessly off base? Most everyone acknowledges that James' letter was written 48-50 AD. Almost all of Paul's letters are viewed as being precise as to their dating. The letters of Peter, Jude, and John as well. Trying to tie all those letters as evidence of a case vs. Paul is mishandling Scripture, history, hermeneutics, and any other Biblical tool we can think of.

The main dating controversy is dealing with Revelation. Some believe it was written prior to 70 AD, which would give even more power to the idea that Revelation may well be dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish system. If it is in fact 95 AD or so, it especially makes the idea of a "trial against Paul in Ephesus" look like more buffoonery than it already does.
Dave P

Clarkesville, GA

#191 Jan 21, 2014
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Paul write that angels, and not God, had given the law to Moses?
Did Paul write and teach that it could be acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols?
Did Paul ever write that the Law was nailed to the cross?
Did Paul ever write that the Law was of no effect any more on the principle that marriage is no longer valid after the previous mate had died and then apply this analogy to the Law having passed away and is no longer binding?

I'll follow Jesus. Jesus said "Follow Me". Will you repent and follow Jesus? He said "Whosoever wills" may partake of the waters of life freely and without cost.
No. No. No. And, you have no idea what the man actually said on any of this now, because you follow JWO guy, JVC guy, and all these other people besides Jesus. Your words about following Him ring very hollow. We all see who you are following.
Dave P

Clarkesville, GA

#192 Jan 21, 2014
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
James dated the manuscript/letter!? You really need to evaluate the truth on the words of God.
So you agree that James probably had Paul's letters in front of him as he built his "case"?

Even though Paul hadn't written ANY of them yet?

Major League Historical Blunder.
Dave P

Clarkesville, GA

#193 Jan 21, 2014
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Because James knew the deal about the law. It was never put in place for someone to adhere to in order to become righteous, it was put in place to show Israel that they cannot be righteous by trying to keep it.
Outside of Jesus, there is not one person in the entire Bible that ever "became righteous," or ever managed to "clean up their flesh so as to please God". And there certainly aren't any around today either. Striving and striving striving and keeping the ten commandments and not cheating on your taxes, not kicking the cat, and tithing 10% yada yada yada etc. will land you in hell, just like everyone else that ever tried to "keep the law in order to be saved."
What's the answer then?
We need the righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed to us. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is the only thing that God is going to accept on our behalf, but almost no one actually believes this.
This is what Paul is trying to convey. Christ did the work at Calvary for us. We were crucified when he was crucified. We were baptized with the baptism of death, same as him. The faith OF Jesus Christ is our faith, because of what he did for us.
Agree with most every bit of this. It is amazing to see that James said most all the things that Paul said, said them FIRST, yet Paul gets trashed and James is the one fighting against Paul. Have you ever heard such ignorance before?

When you try to have a hybrid of the law of Moses with NT Christianity, it almost always ends up being a works based salvation process. We see the fallacy of it at work here.
Mike Peterson

United States

#194 Jan 21, 2014
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what your Church told you it means, but that isn't what Jesus said. He never claimed He was building His Church on Peter and not what He taught or did.
It isn't about Peter - Jesus told all the disciples, which included Peter, that He (Jesus) alone was to be the Teacher. That certainly didn't focus on Peter;-)
Now go back and see if you can make sense of the truth He gave, as well as understand grace as He taught.
Sola Scriptura baby!!!! Yee hawwww!!!

Jesus renames Simon to the word Peter, the first person in history to have that word as a name, then in the same breath says I will build my church on that word.

The first time he met Simon he named him Cephas. I wonder why?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#195 Jan 22, 2014
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sola Scriptura baby!!!! Yee hawwww!!!
Jesus renames Simon to the word Peter, the first person in history to have that word as a name, then in the same breath says I will build my church on that word.
The first time he met Simon he named him Cephas. I wonder why?
Wonder why he didnt call him Pope or why your group doesn t call pope Cephas
Mike Peterson

United States

#196 Jan 22, 2014
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text> Wonder why he didnt call him Pope or why your group doesn t call pope Cephas
Because Jesus named him the word rock at Caesarea Philippi. You should research why he brought the 12 there before he said this and also why he said the gates of hades will never prevail at the same place.

It would be the same as somebody naming someone bridge or highway or cauliflower today. Nobody in recorded history had been named that word.

Why, because Jesus wanted to stress the importance of this event both in words and geographical location. There was no other reason for him to be there.
Barnsweb

Akron, OH

#197 Jan 22, 2014
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Because James knew the deal about the law. It was never put in place for someone to adhere to in order to become righteous, it was put in place to show Israel that they cannot be righteous by trying to keep it.
Outside of Jesus, there is not one person in the entire Bible that ever "became righteous," or ever managed to "clean up their flesh so as to please God". And there certainly aren't any around today either. Striving and striving striving and keeping the ten commandments and not cheating on your taxes, not kicking the cat, and tithing 10% yada yada yada etc. will land you in hell, just like everyone else that ever tried to "keep the law in order to be saved."
What's the answer then?
We need the righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed to us. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is the only thing that God is going to accept on our behalf, but almost no one actually believes this.
This is what Paul is trying to convey. Christ did the work at Calvary for us. We were crucified when he was crucified. We were baptized with the baptism of death, same as him. The faith OF Jesus Christ is our faith, because of what he did for us.
More of Paul's twisted teachings. Jesus paid the price deficient. We were not on the cross with Him, crucified with Him. Where did Jesus say His righteousness was imputed to us due to His work on the cross?

Instead, Jesus taught repentance from sin - turning from sin - turning from iniquity and doing the will of God, which is what He taught - what the will of God actually is. This also goes together with the end of Acts, that He came to bless us by turning each one of us from our iniquity - not to impute His righteousness because we cannot have any! What then of those in Revelation who have the right to enter the City:

Was this right imputed to them as a gift because they said a prayer? No

Was this right because they repented and did the will of God? Yes

It's Gods grace to forgive our trespasses, but as Jesus said, workers of iniquity He will tell; "Depart from Me" and "I never knew you" - in spite of the false gospel they were taught.

Based on lawlessness or doing the will of God?
Barnsweb

Akron, OH

#198 Jan 22, 2014
Read Acts 3:22,23. It's far harder to live by the standards of righteousness Jesus taught than to simply abide by the Commandments of God given to Moses.

This is why our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees or we can in no way enter heaven.
Barnsweb

Akron, OH

#199 Jan 22, 2014
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how many experts, ancient witnesses, scholars do you need to show that your idea of history and timelines is hopelessly off base? Most everyone acknowledges that James' letter was written 48-50 AD. Almost all of Paul's letters are viewed as being precise as to their dating. The letters of Peter, Jude, and John as well. Trying to tie all those letters as evidence of a case vs. Paul is mishandling Scripture, history, hermeneutics, and any other Biblical tool we can think of.
The main dating controversy is dealing with Revelation. Some believe it was written prior to 70 AD, which would give even more power to the idea that Revelation may well be dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish system. If it is in fact 95 AD or so, it especially makes the idea of a "trial against Paul in Ephesus" look like more buffoonery than it already does.
According to Rome?;-)
Barnsweb

Akron, OH

#200 Jan 22, 2014
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree with most every bit of this. It is amazing to see that James said most all the things that Paul said, said them FIRST, yet Paul gets trashed and James is the one fighting against Paul. Have you ever heard such ignorance before?
When you try to have a hybrid of the law of Moses with NT Christianity, it almost always ends up being a works based salvation process. We see the fallacy of it at work here.
Jesus did teach the fullness of grace and truth - but the fullness He taught said we are judged by our works - not some 'faith feeling' without works. James refutes Paul in saying faith without works is DEAD.

Do recall the parable of the vinedresser.
Barnsweb

Akron, OH

#201 Jan 22, 2014
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sola Scriptura baby!!!! Yee hawwww!!!
Jesus renames Simon to the word Peter, the first person in history to have that word as a name, then in the same breath says I will build my church on that word.
The first time he met Simon he named him Cephas. I wonder why?
You cannot hear Him because you are not of Him. Those of God have no trouble understanding that Jesus wasn't saying He was building His Church upon Peter.

From the passage, what are the other possibilities?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Caleb Robertson lied on TV (Nov '11) Thu Cantrip 35
Victory Baptist Church: The BIG cross (Apr '12) Sep 10 William 22
Is Martinsville Church Of Christ a big lie? (Nov '09) Sep 10 historian65616 74
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) Sep 9 historian65616 41
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Aug 30 William 34
Catholics (Feb '14) Aug '16 mpetershat 3,369
i gotta doo doo!!! Jul '16 Captain peckerlips 1

Bassett Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bassett Mortgages